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

     

    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    18 2 1 9 0 6

     

    Airprox    

    Aircraft 1

    (Type)        

    Aircraft 2

    (Type)               

    Airspace

    (Class)             

    Cause ICAO Risk
    2018258

    Hawk

    (HQ Air Ops)

    Tornado

    (Foreign Mil)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Hawk pilot was concerned by his perceived proximity of the Tornados.

    Contributory:  1. The Hawk pilot had a flawed mental model of the Tornados’ proximity.

    2. The controller passed Traffic Information incorrectly.

    E
    2018266

    Hawk

    (HQ Air Ops)

    LS3

    (Civ Gld)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A non-sighting by both pilots.

    Recommendation: The CAA and MAA review the regulations and procedures pertaining to ATC use of ‘unassured data’ such as FLARM for the provision of Traffic Information.

    A
    2018268

    Wittman Tailwind

    (Civ FW)

    C550

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by the Tailwind pilot and a non-sighting by the C550 pilot. C
    2018269

    Viking

    (HQ Air Trg)

    C182

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Viking pilot was concerned by the proximity of the C182. E
    2018271

    PA28

    (Civ FW)

    C172

    (Civ FW)

    Cambridge ATZ

    (G)

    The C172 pilot flew close enough to the PA28 to cause its pilot concern. C
    2018273

    PA28

    (Civ FW)

    PA30

    (Civ FW)

    Blackbushe ATZ

    (G)

    The PA30 pilot did not integrate with the PA28 in the visual circuit.

    Contributory: 1. The PA30 pilot was distracted by the open door.

    2. Neither pilot was at their respective promulgated circuit heights.

    A
    2018277

    DJI Phantom

    (Civ UAS)

    Apache

    (HQ JHC)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G resolved by the drone operator. C
    2018278

    Paramotor

    (Civ Hang)

    AA-5

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by both pilots. E
    2018279

    PA34

    (Civ FW)

    Glider

    (Civ Gld)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A late sighting by the PA34 pilot and a non-sighting by the glider pilot.

    Contributory: The hazy conditions reduced the PA34 pilot’s ability to see the glider earlier.

    C
    2018280

    B737

    (CAT)

    F15

    (Foreign Mil)

    London UIR

    (C)

    The F15 crews climbed above their cleared level.

    Contributory: 1. The Swanwick controller did not assimilate the F15 level bust. 2. The incomplete F15 read-back was not detected by the Swanwick controller.

    C
    2018282

    AS365

    (HEMS)

    Hawk

    (HQ Air Trg)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A sighting report. E
    2018284

    PA28(A)

    (Civ FW)

    PA28(B)

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

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

    Contributory: The PA28(B) pilot elected to remain co-altitude as they converged.

    E
    2018285

    PA34

    (Civ FW)

    AS350

    (Civ Helo)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The controller was concerned by the proximity of the two aircraft.

    Contributory: The AS350 pilot did not communicate with Cranfield ATSU before passing through ‘the feathers’.

    C
    2018286

    B787

    (CAT)

    A350

    (CAT)

    London TMA

    (A)

    The A350 crew did not comply with their clearance and turned into conflict with the B787. C
    2018287

    DR400

    (Civ FW)

    PA28

    (Civ FW)

    Goodwood ATZ

    (G)

    A conflict in the visual circuit resolved by both pilots.

    Contributory: 1. The FISO did not pass Traffic Information on the DR400 to the PA28 pilot.

    2. The PA28 pilot did not fly the downwind track.

    B
    2018289

    BAe146

    (HQ Air Ops)

    DA20

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A sighting report. E
    2018292

    PA28

    (Civ FW)

    BE58

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    A conflict in Class G resolved by both pilots. C
    2018294

    Vulcan Harrier

    (Civ UAS)

    PA28

    (Civ FW)

    London FIR

    (G)

    The PA28 pilot flew through a promulgated and active NOTAM and into conflict with the drone. C

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

    Download below sheet as PDF

     

    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    8 3 3 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

    2019007

    15 Jan 19

    1140

    Typhoon

    (HQ Air Ops)

    Unk Obj

    5329N 00010W

    SW Grimsby

    FL150

     

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Typhoon pilot reports leading a pair from Coningsby to D323A/B. After receiving a clearance to climb to FL300, from FL150, he noticed an object in the left 11 o'clock at about 1nm, slightly high and maintaining a constant altitude. The radar and data link showed no traffic conflictions, nor were any passed by ASACS. The object reflected sunlight and appeared to have a linear form. The object passed down the left-hand-side. The wingman independently saw the same object as it passed over the leader’s aircraft. He maintained the formation at FL150 until they were clear of the object.

     

    Reported Separation: 1000ftV/1000ft H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

     

    The Weapons Controller reports that the Typhoons were transiting from Coningsby to the D323 complex.  At 1140 the lead Typhoon pilot reported that a small, metal object had flown overhead approximately 2000ft above them.  The Typhoons were at FL150 and reported that the object appeared to be at FL170.  There were no plots, hits or any other indication on the radar picture.

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

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where there had been no risk of collision.

    C
    2019023

    3 Feb 19

    1240

    B787

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5128N 00018W

    10nm ILS RW27L            

    3300ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The B787 pilot reports conducting an ‘automatic’ approach to Heathrow RW27L. The co-pilot (PF) pointed ahead of the aircraft and announced ‘drone’. The captain attempted to gain visual contact but did not see the object until it passed down the left side of the aircraft. The crew discussed the sighting and passed the information to Heathrow Tower. A general broadcast was made by Tower to aircraft on frequency warning of the drone sighting. After parking on stand, the flight was met by two police officers who took all relevant details. They informed him that the following aircraft had also reported seeing a drone. The PF stated that he first saw the drone directly ahead, distance unknown. As the aircraft closed, the drone tilted left, from his point of view, to move out of the path of the B787. There was insufficient time to take avoiding action. The drone was large, had multiple rotors and was of a dark grey or Kevlar finish.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/~150m 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 safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

    B
    2019025

    11 Feb 19

    1320

    A319

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5326N 00205W

    9nm ILS RW23R

    3000ft

    Manchester CTR

    (D)

    The A319 pilot reports that he was about to establish on the Manchester ILS at 9nm, at 3000ft.  He was in clear VMC, in daylight, in a gap between scattered cloud, when he noticed a dark object slightly left of the nose, slightly above and approaching almost head-on.  It became apparent that it was a rectangular quadcopter with 4 long legs hanging down.  It was a dark colour, between 0.5-1m long and 0.3-0.5m wide and appeared to be hovering. The encounter only lasted about 5 seconds before they passed the drone.  He opined that if they were being filmed it would have looked spectacular, but whilst the drone’s position was stable, it was a close encounter.

     

    Reported Separation: 30ft V/10m 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 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
    2019027

    14 Feb 19

    1655

    B787

    (CAT)

    2 x Drone

    5139N 00011E

    Brentwood

    FL140

     

    London TMA

    (A)

    The B787 pilot reports approaching LAM from the east when the Cabin Crew Manager saw 2 multi-rotor drones on the right-hand side of the aircraft. The first drone was slightly low and a bit further out, whereas the second was close in at the same level and seemed to take avoiding action.

     

    Reported Separation:

    1. 30ft V/60m H

    2. 0ft V/30m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: High

    Cause: The drones were being flown above the maximum permitted height of 400ft such that they were endangering other aircraft at that location. The Board agreed that the incident was therefore best described as the drones were 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
    2019029

    19 Feb 19

    1211

    Tutor

    (HQ Air Trg)

    Drone

    5237N 00040W

    3nm SE Oakham

    5000ft

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Tutor pilot reports that after completing a barrel roll, an aircraft was sighted ahead and slightly below, at an estimated range of 1km.  Upon commencing a left-turn, he realised it was a very small triangular drone which was very close.  The left-turn meant that they circled the drone for 180°, before returning en-route.  The drone was brightly lit on its upper surface and operating at about 5000ft, it appeared to be hovering. Wittering ATC were informed, who provided the exact location.

     

    Reported Separation: 100ft V/ 50-100m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

     

    The Wittering controller reports that the Tutor pilot reported a drone at his position in the vicinity of Rutland water at 5000ft. 

    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 Tutor.

     

    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
    2019030

    17 Feb 19

    1133

    B787

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5132N 00034W

    Slough

    3800ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The B787 pilot reports that during departure a drone passed down the right-hand side. He commented that it did not appear to be an ‘off-the-shelf’ design. It was 2-2½ft across with 5 or 6 rotors.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/150m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: NK

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

    B
    2019031

    22 Feb 19

    1730             

    (sunset 1727)                                             

    G550

    (Civ Comm)

    Drone

    5118N 00042W

    3nm NE Farnborough   

    1600ft

    London FIR

    (G)

    The G550 pilot reports on the ILS Approach to RW24 in VMC then they saw a small black object first identified as a bird but noted that it was ‘too late’ for them to fly. As the aircraft got closer they recognised that it was a drone. They saw the lights of the drone and the lens of a camera as it passed on the left side.

     

    Reported Separation: 3-6ft V/10-15m 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 G550.

     

    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
    2019033

    23 Feb 19

    1200

    A319

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5554N 00421W

    Glasgow

    1200ft

    Glasgow CTR

    (D)

    The A319 pilot reports that whilst established on the ILS to Glasgow RW23, the FO saw a white drone with red stripes pass beneath and slightly to the right.  The drone was straight and level and tracking eastbound.

     

    Reported Separation: 150ft V/20m 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 A319.

     

    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