UK Airprox Board UK Airprox Board
  • Assessment Summary Sheet for UKAB Meeting on 16th January 2019

     

    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    20 1 7 9 0 3

     

    Airprox

    Aircraft 1

    (Type)

    Aircraft 2

    (Type)

    Airspace

    (Class)

    Cause ICAO Risk
    2018162

    ASK13

    (Civ Gld)

    B737

    (Civ Comm)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A sighting report.

    Recommendation: Lasham and Farnborough liaise to discuss mutual operations.

    E
    2018186

    Prefect(A)

    (HQ Air Trg)          

    Prefect(B)

    (HQ Air Trg)

    Barkston ATZ

    (G)

    Prefect(B) pilot did not integrate with Prefect(A).

    Contributory: Neither pilot assimilated the radio calls of the other.

    B
    2018205

    PA28

    (Civ FW)

    R22

    (Civ Helo)

    Wellesbourne ATZ

    (G)

    The R22 student pilot inadvertently flew through the Wellesbourne ATZ and into conflict with the PA28.

    Contributory: 1. The R22 pilot was uncertain of his position.

    2. The R22 pilot allowed himself to be distracted by the onboard navigation equipment, to the detriment of lookout.

    Recommendation: The CAA consider expanding GNSS theoretical knowledge and flying training syllabi.

    B
    2018206

    AC112

    (Civ FW)

    C152

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by the AC112 pilot and effectively a non-sighting by the C152 pilot. B
    2018207

    Wildcat

    (RN)

    T61

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G resolved by the Wildcat pilot. C
    2018208

    Merlin(A)

    (RN)

    Merlin(B)

    (RN)

    London FIR

    (G)

    Merlin(A) pilot climbed into conflict with Merlin(B).

    Contributory: 1. Merlin(A) crew was task focused to the detriment of lookout and SA.

    2. The TAS display was not located in an appropriate position.

    3. The Merlin TAS procedures were ambiguous.

    4. The Merlin(A) crew perceived the valid TAS alert as a false alert.

    A
    2018209

    Hawk x 2

    (HQ Air Ops)                  

    Pegasus Quantum

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Hawk pilots flew through the pattern of traffic at Beverley and in to conflict with the Pegasus Quantum. C
    2018211

    TB10

    (Civ FW)

    JS41

    (CAT)

    Scottish FIR

    (G)

    The Wick controller cleared the JS41 pilot to climb into conflict with the TB10.

    Contributory: The Wick controller informed the Prestwick controller that the aircraft would be ‘clean’ on transfer.

    C
    2018212

    F15

    (Foreign Mil)

    Duo Discus glider

    (Civ Gld)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A Conflict in Class G resolved by the F15 pilots. B
    2018213

    S92

    (Civ Comm)

    Typhoon

    (HQ Air Ops)

    Scottish FIR

    (G)

    The Typhoon pilot descended below the coordinated level and flew in to conflict with the S92.

    Contributory: 1. The Typhoon pilot did not read back his clearance and the Boulmer controller did not detect the lack of read-back.

    2. The Typhoon did not paint on the Boulmer radar.

    C
    2018216

    EMB170

    (CAT)

    Paramotor

    (Civ Hang)

    Belfast City CTR

    (D)

    The paramotor pilot entered Class D airspace without clearance and flew into conflict with the EMB170.

    Recommendations: 1. The CAA review certification and licensing requirements for paramotor activities.

    2. BHPA publicise this incident.

    B
    2018218

    A320

    (CAT)

    PA38

    (Civ FW)

    Liverpool CTR

    (D)

     A sighting report. E
    2018221

    DHC 6

    (CAT)

    PA28

    (Civ FW)

    Lands End ATZ

    (G)

    A conflict in the ATZ resolved by ATC. C
    2018223

    Juno

    (HQ Air Trg)

    AS350

    (Civ Helo)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The AS350 pilot flew close enough to cause the Juno pilot concern. C
    2018224

    C152

    (Civ FW)

    SR22

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The SR22 pilot did not integrate and flew into conflict with the C152 in the visual circuit. C
    2018229

    SR20

    (Civ FW)

    DA42

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The DA42 pilot flew into conflict with the SR20.

    Contributory: The DA42 pilot did not call for join sufficiently early.

    C
    2018230

    AW169

    (HEMS)

    Chipmunk

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The AW169 pilot was concerned by the proximity of the Chipmunk. E
    2018231

    Drone

    (Civ UAS)

    Tucano

    (HQ Air Trg)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A non-sighting by the Tucano pilot and effectively a non-sighting by the drone operator. B
    2018232

    C130

    (HQ Air Ops)

    PA46

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A non-sighing by the PA46 pilot.

    Recommendation: Boscombe and Thruxton to review their LoA.

    C
    2018233

    C172

    (Civ FW)

    TB9

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by the C172 pilot and a non-sighting by the TB9 pilot. B

  • Consolidated Drone/Balloon/Model/Unknown Object Report Sheet for UKAB Meeting on 16th Jan 2019

    Download below sheet as PDF


    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    11 3 4 3 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

    2018288                  

    03 Oct 18                                                        

    1453                                                       

    A320

    CAT

    Drone

    5325N 00250W

    5nm N Liverpool Airport

    2600ft

    Liverpool CTA                 

    (D)

    The A320 pilot reports that they had requested a visual approach from Liverpool Approach when the Captain saw an object ahead and right of the aircraft. He informed the FO and instructed the FO to make no turns and maintain heading. It was difficult to assess if the drone maintained its altitude, but it appeared to. It appeared to be moving east to west relative to the A320 but might have been in a constant position. They reported it to Liverpool ATC.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/ 400-600m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: None

    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 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
    2018291

    27 Oct 18

    1645

     

    B787

    CAT

    Drone

    5119N 00022W

    10nm S Heathrow

    FL090

    London TMA

    (A)

    The B787 pilot reports that they were on a Detling departure and had been placed on a radar heading.  When passing through FL090, the First Officer saw a drone and the Capt saw it shortly afterwards, when it was in the 11-12 o’clock and a little ahead.  It appeared to move left and passed down the left-hand-side of the aircraft.  It was fractionally above and was dark in colour, at least 2ft in diameter and appeared to be crucifix shaped in planform.  Despite craning his head, the Capt could not see the wingtip from his seat, but he estimated the drone passed just above the height of the wingtip and about 15m beyond it, however because they were relatively light, the flex of the 787’s wing could well have meant it was at the same height as the wingtip.  Avoiding action was not possible and he reported it to ATC.

     

    Reported Separation: 10ft V/ 15m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

    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 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
    2018295

    1 Nov 18

    1622

    A320

    CAT

    Unk Obj

    5425N 00520W

    E Belfast

    FL111

     

    P600

    (D)

    The A320 pilot reports he was descending into Belfast and passing FL111 when the FO spotted an object at 12 o’clock, low and appearing to move quickly towards them.  They checked TCAS to see whether it was a military fast jet, but nothing was showing.  As it got closer the Capt had his hands on the controls ready to disconnect auto-pilot and take avoiding action and the FO covered the sidestick.  The object passed down the right-hand-side of the aircraft and details were passed to ATC.  The Capt suspected it was a weather balloon, thought he saw a tethering line and described it as silver in colour.  The FO thought it was a drone, and described it as dark silvery blue, spherical with two small circular mechanisms on the top of the object, like drone rotors, although thought that on reflection a drone at that altitude was unlikely.  He noted that it was difficult to assess the size or the proximity to the aircraft, certainly it was very close to the wing-tip and within 75m of the cockpit.  As it got closer they could see that it would pass clear although the time from first sighting to passing was only about 6 seconds.

     

    Reported Separation: 50ftV/ 75m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

    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
    2018296

    28 Oct 18

    1555

    A320

    CAT

    Drone

    5125N 00256W

    9.5nm N from Bristol

    3800ft

    Bristol CTA

    (D)

    The A320 pilot reports that they were heading south, preparing for an approach when they saw the drone. The drone appeared level as they descended through its level. It passed down the right-hand side, less than one wing span away. There was no time to take any avoiding action as the drone was so close. They informed Bristol ATC immediately.  

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/ <30m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

    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 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
    2018297

    4 Nov 18

    1340

    PA18

    Civ FW

    Drone

    5626N 00324W

    Perth

    1200ft

    Perth ATZ

    (G)

    The PA18 pilot reports that he departed from Perth RW21, with a climbing right turn to the west.  When about 2nm east of Perth racecourse, just within the boundary of the ATZ he saw an object in the 10 o’clock position, slightly lower than his altitude and about 25m south of his position.  He initially thought it was a large black bird, or a plastic bag, but as he passed it he saw it was a small black drone with coloured lights on top.  When he saw the object, he started a climb and on passing initiated a climbing left turn to maintain visual contact with it. After one orbit he lost visual contact and continued the climb to 2000ft. 

     

    Reported Separation: 20ft V/25m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

    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 PA18.

     

    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
    2018298

    28 Oct 18

    1745

    EMB135

    Civ Com

     
    Unk Obj

    5115N 00049W

    Farnborough

    1200ft

         

    Farnborough ATZ

    (G)

    The EMB135 pilot reports that whilst flying the Farnborough ILS RW06, at 3.4DME he observed a white light pass below the aircraft from front to back at very high speed.  It was dark, so he was unable to positively identify the object but suspected it was some sort of drone.  It was reported to ATC.

     

    Reported Separation: NR

    Reported Risk of Collision: NR

    Cause: The Board were unable to determine the nature of the object reported and agreed that there was insufficient information to come to an assessment of the cause.

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where there was insufficient information to make a sound judgement of risk.

    D
    2018299

    1 Sep 18

    1825

    A340

    CAT

    Drone

    5128N 00023W

    Heathrow

    950ft

    London CTR

    (D)

    The A340 pilot reports that he was on a radar heading for intercept of the RW27R ILS at Heathrow.  ATC advised that a previous pilot had reported seeing a drone at 10nm final, they flew past that position with no sighting of a drone.  However, at 2.5 DME when established on the ILS and passing 950ft they encountered a drone slightly to the right and 100ft below. They reported it to ATC and subsequently to the Met police. The drone was black, of an elongated rectangular shape and about half a metre in size, possibly a DJI model.

     

    Reported Separation: 100ft V/ ‘Slightly right’

     

    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 A340.

       

    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
    2018307

    24 Nov 18

    1313

    Saab 2000

    CAT

    Drone

    5545N 00438W

    9nm SW Glasgow

    3000ft

    Glasgow CTR

    (D)

    The SAAB 2000 pilot reports that he was on the localiser for Glasgow RW05 at 9nm when he saw a large commercial drone, about 1m wide.  It was dark or black in colour and flying 5m above the Captain’s window, moving in a straight line and at high speed.  Both pilots saw it, and independently described the same size, colour and height above the aircraft. It was reported to ATC and the Police met them on the ground to file a report.  Ops were informed, and an inspection of the tail was requested because the crew thought it may have been hit, however no damage was found.

     

    Reported Separation: 5m V/ 0m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

    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 SAAB 2000.

     

    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
    2018308

    7 Nov 18

    1050

    A388

    CAT

    Unk Obj

    5114N 00103E

    14nm E Gatwick

    FL100

    London TMA

    (A)

    The A388 pilot reports that he saw an object ahead and slightly right of the aircraft in the 1230 position.  It appeared stationary.  It was black in colour and was clearly not a bird, it looked more like a drone than a weather balloon, although they could not rule out that it was a balloon.

     

    Reported Separation: 500ft V/ 1.5nm H

    Reported Risk of Collision: None

    Cause: The Board were unable to determine the nature of the unknown object and agreed that the incident was best described as a sighting report.

     

    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
    2018309

    21 Nov 18                    

    1510

    Squirrel

    Civ Com

    Drone

    5019N 00457W

    Ladock, Cornwall

    1500ft

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Squirrel pilot reports that he was returning from the Roseland Peninsula, and had called Newquay radar to inform them of his return at 1500ft.  ATC informed him of two in the visual circuit, and the Instructor confirmed one of the aircraft in the circuit was sighted ahead.  However, this aircraft/object then appeared much closer than originally thought, and was re-identified as a UAV, which continued to pass down the right-hand-side of the aircraft at the same height and within 100m. It departed to the south, whilst the Squirrel continued north.  The UAV was elliptically shaped, black and white in colour and about 2ft in length. 

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/ <100m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

    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 Squirrel

     

    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
    2018311

    4 Dec 18

    1025

    EMB 190

    CAT

    Drone

    5130N 00000W

    3nm NW London City

    3000ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The EMB 190 pilot reports that he was departing from London city and had been cleared direct to SODVU at 3000ft.  Abeam waypoint LCN06 the Capt and Co-pilot simultaneously recognised a small airborne object slightly below their flightpath and approaching their position.  A few seconds later it was identifiable as a drone and passed exactly below them with a separation of 200ft or less.  Against the sunlight it appeared black and they could see the detailed structure of the quadcopter.  Although they could not define the size, it was larger than the usual ‘pleasure’ drones.  He reported it to ATC.

     

    Reported Separation: <200ft V/ 0m H

    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 EMB 190.

     

    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