UK Airprox Board UK Airprox Board
  • Assessment Summary Sheet for UKAB Meeting on 13th February 2019

     

    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    17 1 6 7 1 2

     

    Airprox     

    Aircraft 1

    (Type)           

    Aircraft 2

    (Type)          

    Airspace

    (Class)          

    Cause ICAO Risk
    2018217

    C150

    (Civ FW)

    Chinook

    (HQ JHC)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Chinook pilot turned into conflict with the C150. B
    2018235

    Piel Emeraude

    (Civ FW)

    A109

    (Civ Helo)

    Sywell ATZ

    (G)

    The A109 pilot flew into conflict with the Emeraude.

    Contributory: 1. The AFISO suggested that the A109 pilot cross the runways. 2. The Sloane helicopter join procedure requires arriving helicopters to cross the runways’ thresholds. 3. The A109 pilot manoeuvred adjacent to the approach to RW03R.

    Recommendations: 1. Sywell revise the use of ‘Sloane procedures’ during the LAA Rally. 2. Sywell review the AIC to emphasise the importance of going-around if in conflict with other traffic. 3. Sywell review the AIC to emphasise that pilots will not be in receipt of an Aerodrome Control Service.

    C
    2018237

    PA30

    (Civ FW)

    PA28

    (Civ FW)

    Sywell ATZ

    (G)

    The PA30 pilot did not see the PA28 on long final.

    Contributory: 1. The PA28 pilot did not follow the joining procedure. 2. Both pilots extended downwind beyond the normal base position. 3. The PA28 pilot continued his approach despite being aware of the PA30 in close proximity.

    Recommendation: That Sywell consider specifying that parallel approaches are not to be conducted.

    A
    2018239

    AW169

    (HEMS)

    PA32

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The AW169 pilot did not integrate with the PA32 in the visual circuit.

    Recommendation: North Weald consider promulgating specific helicopter procedures.

    C
    2018240

    Tecnam Sierra

    (Civ FW)

    SOCATA TB20

    (Civ FW)

    Sywell ATZ

    (G)

    The TB20 pilot flew into conflict with the Tecnam on long final.

    Contributory: 1. Neither pilot followed the joining procedure accurately. 2. Neither pilot chose to go around despite being aware of the proximity of the other aircraft.

    C
    2018241

    C42

    (Civ FW)

    PA28

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Board were not able to reach a satisfactory conclusion as to the cause due to a dearth of information. D
    2018243

    AS365

    (HEMS)

    Hawk x 2

    (HQ Air Ops)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A sighting report. E
    2018246

    Apache WAH64

    (HQ AAC)

    DR400

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by the Apache pilot and probably a non-sighting by the DR400 pilot. B
    2018247

    DHC8

    (CAT)

    AS355

    (Civ Helo)

    London CTR

    (D)

    A TCAS sighting report.

    Contributory: The AS355 briefly indicated a climb above the cleared level.

    E
    2018248

    Sentinel R1

    (HQ Air Ops)

    Microlight

    (Unknown)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G. B
    2018249

    EC135

    (NPAS)

    LS8

    (Civ Gld)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G resolved by the EC135 pilot. B
    2018252

    C152

    (Civ FW)

    Hawks x 9

    (HQ Air Ops)

    Wickenby ATZ

    (G)

    Whilst avoiding reported traffic, the Hawks inadvertently entered the Wickenby ATZ and flew into proximity with the C152.

    Recommendation: That Wickenby and Waddington consider the use of the 7010 squawk for Wickenby circuit traffic.

    C
    2018253

    C152

    (Civ FW)

    B206

    (Civ Helo)

    Blackbushe ATZ

    (G)

    A conflict in the Blackbushe ATZ resolved by the B206 pilot. B
    2018254

    PW-5 Glider

    (Civ Gld)

    Light Aircraft

    (Unknown)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The light aircraft pilot flew through an active and promulgated glider site and into conflict with the PW-5. B
    2018255

    PA25/K13 glider

    (Civ FW)

    CTSW

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The CTSW and unknown aircraft flew close enough to cause the PA25 pilot concern. C
    2018257

    Spitfire

    (HQ Air Ops)

     

    J3 Cub

    (Civ FW)

     

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by both pilots.

    Contributory: The Cub pilot was unaware of the NOTAM.

    C
    2018267

    C42

    (Civ FW)

    Tornado x 2

    (HQ Air Ops)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The lead Tornado flew into conflict with the C42. C

  • Consolidated Drone/Balloon/Model/Unknown Object Report Sheet for UKAB Meeting on 13th Feb 2019

    Download below sheet as PDF

     

    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    10 2 5 3 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     

    2018318

    14 Dec 18

    1009

    Legacy 500

    (Civ FW)

    Drone

    5604N 00315W

    8nm NNE Edinburgh

    3000ft

    Edinburgh CTR

    (D)

    The Legacy pilot reports that he was the PIC, seated on the right, operating as PM and providing line training to a new Captain. They were in receipt of radar vectors from Edinburgh, downwind right-hand for RW24. Having finished the approach briefing, the PIC looked up and saw something black, moving in his peripheral vision on the right. He turned and looked right and clearly saw a ‘quadcopter’ like drone. There was no time to take avoiding action. The PIC reported the drone to ATC who informed the police, to whom the PIC gave a statement on landing. The pilot commented that he was surprised and angry at the drone’s proximity and stated that a mandatory identification device should be fitted to drones before a multi-million pound engine is destroyed, or worse.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/20m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

     

    The Edinburgh controller reports that the Legacy pilot reported an Airprox whilst overland in the vicinity of Burntisland. The drone was not observed on radar.

    Cause: The drone was being flown above the maximum permitted height of 400ft 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 Legacy.

     

    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
    2018321

    23 Dec 18

    1457

    A330

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5126N 00000W

    4nm SSW London City

    4000ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The A330 pilot reports that a blue drone was sighted off the right-hand-side of the aircraft, about 200ft below.  The aircraft was 1nm south of an extended 17nm final approach to LHR RW27R.

     

    Reported Separation: 200ft V/NK H

     

    The Heathrow controller reports that at approximately 1457 the A330 pilot reported seeing a blue drone ‘not very big’ in size pass 300ft below.  The A330 was passing 4000ft at the time and was 4nm SSW of London City Airport.

    Cause: The drone was being flown above the maximum permitted height of 400ft 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 A330.

     

    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
    2018322

    26 Dec 18

    1420

    DHC8

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5133N 00045E

    5nm E Southend

    6000ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The DHC8 pilot reports inbound to London/City when the crew observed a black drone with 2 red rotors. The crew observed that they were operating above overcast cloud tops. ATC were informed.

     

    Reported Separation: ‘below’/50m

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

     

    The London controller reports that the DHC8 pilot reported a red drone with 2 propellers. The incident was reported to police.

    Cause: The drone was being flown above the maximum permitted height of 400ft 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
    2018323

    30 Dec 18

    1845

    (Night)

    EMB175

    (CAT)

    Unk Obj

    5554N 00420W

    Glasgow

    600ft

    Glasgow CTR

    (D)

    The EMB175 pilot reports that on approach to Glasgow airport, when passing about 600ft he saw an object pass between 3 and 10ft from the aircraft, at the same level.  He couldn’t tell was the object was, it was lit up in various places and was more horizontally long than it was vertically.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/ 3-10ft H

     

    Cause: The Board were unable to determine the nature of the object reported and so agreed that the incident was therefore 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
    2018324

    30 Dec 18

    1832

    (Night)

    A319

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5135N 00036E

    3nm W Southend

    4000ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The A319 pilot reports  that a suspected drone was seen on the right hand side. It had a blue flashing light and ‘twinkling’ red light. It did not appear to be moving fast relative to the A319, as it would do were it another aircraft, so the crew surmised that it was just their forward speed causing the drone to pass behind them. The pilot noted that the blue/red light intensity was low compared to standard aircraft lighting. TCAS did not display an intruder. The incident was reported to ATC.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/1nm H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Low

    Cause: The drone was being flown above the maximum permitted height of 400ft such that it was endangering other aircraft at that location. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the A319 pilot being concerned by the proximity of the drone.

     

    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
    2018325

    2 Jul 18

    1145

    EMB135

    (Civ Com)

    Drone

    5132N 00034W

    10nm W Northolt

    1800ft

    London CTR

    (D)

    The EMB135 pilot reports that a red drone was spotted from the cabin by the cabin crew on the starboard side of the aircraft when on extended base leg for Northolt RW07. The drone was reported to be higher than the aircraft and turning away in a westerly direction. Cabin crew reported the incident to the Captain after landing.

     

    Reported Separation: NK V/ 150m H

    Cause: The drone was being flown at the practical limit of VLOS and in a position 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 EMB135.

     

    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
    2019005

    12 Jan 19

    0945

    A320

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5118N 00003E

    IVO BIG VOR

    FL080

    London TMA

    (A)

    The A320 pilot reports that they were approaching the BIG hold at FL080 when an object was noticed by both pilots in the distance. As it approached it became clear it was a drone and was possibly being manoeuvred close to them. It passed by the port wing at a distance of about 30-50 metres. It was large in size and black in colour with twin rotors. No avoiding action needed or taken, but both crew agreed that had it been closer, they would probably have had to manoeuvre to avoid. It was reported to LHR approach controller and the crew requested to move to another hold to avoid re-crossing the drone next time round the hold. They were rerouted to OCK at FL070.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/30-50m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Low

     

    The Heathrow Int South controller reports that the A320 pilot reported a large black drone passing down his left-hand-side whilst inbound to the BIG hold at FL080.

    Cause: The drone was being flown above the maximum permitted height of 400ft 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 disagreed with the A320 pilot’s assessment of risk and considered that separation was such that the incident portrayed a situation where safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

    B
    2019006

    9 Jan 19

    1458

    B737

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5049N 00044W

    Chichester

    FL190

    London FIR

    (A)

    A B737 pilot qualified passenger reports that he saw a large drone pass on the right side which, after a few seconds, appeared to turn away and start descending. The passenger stated that he was certain the object was not a helicopter or other aircraft.

     

    Reported Separation: ~0ft V/<500m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Not reported.

    Cause: The drone was being flown above the maximum permitted height of 400ft 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 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
    2019009

    13 Jan 19

    1050

    A320

    (CAT)

    Unk Obj

    5127N 00002E

    Heathrow

    5000ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The A320 pilot reports that during descent to Heathrow, passing about 5000ft on heading 300° he saw an unknown object passing on the left-hand-side of the aircraft, slightly below. The object was only in sight for a short moment. It was of a "roundish" irregular shape with black/white/orange stripes on the top and approximately 50cm - 1m in size.  It could even have been a small parachute. As it all happened extremely quickly, and the object was only in sight for a very short moment, a better description of the object or the judgement of the closest point was difficult, but he estimated it to be vertical separation 100ft and lateral separation 100m.  He reported the event to ATC.

       

    Reported Separation: 100ft V/100m H

    Cause: The Board were unable to determine the nature of the object reported and so agreed that the incident was therefore 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 safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

    B
    2019012

    22 Jan 19

    1026

    C406

    (Civ FW)

    Drone

    5206N 00100W

    Silverstone

    FL067

    Daventry CTA

    (A)

    The C406 pilot reports flying survey lines when he saw a large dark coloured drone pass by on the left hand side.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/50m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Low

    Cause: The drone was being flown above the maximum permitted height of 400ft 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 C406.

     

    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