UK Airprox Board UK Airprox Board
  • Assessment Summary Sheet for UKAB Meeting on Wednesday 22nd April 2020

    Contributory factor assessment for each Airprox can be downloaded here

     

    Total A B C D E
    13 1 4 6 0 2

     

    Airprox Aircraft 1 (Type) Aircraft 2 (Type) Airspace (Class)

    ICAO

    Risk

    2019295 F15(A) (Foreign Mil) F15(B) (Foreign Mil) London FIR (G) B
    2019298 SZD Junior (Civ Gld) Parachutist (Civ Para) London FIR (G) A
    Recommendation: Dunkeswell airfield and the Devon And Somerset Gliding Club reach agreement to include parachuting operations within their Letter of Agreement.
    2019300 Hawk T2 (HQ Air Trg) Tucano x 2 (HQ Air Trg) London FIR (G) C
    Recommendation: MoD considers the introduction of a flow arrow for the Honister Pass.
    2019303 PA28(A) (Civ FW) PA28(B) (Civ FW) London FIR (G) C
    2019304 AS365 (HEMS) Weight-shift M/L (Unknown) London FIR (G) B
    2019310 Hawk (HQ Air Trg) Hawk (HQ Air Trg) London FIR (G) E
    2019312 C152 (Civ FW) C182 (Civ FW) Gamston ATZ (G) B
    2019313 DA42 (Civ FW) PA38 (Civ FW) London FIR (G) B
    2019317 EC135 (NPAS) AW109 (Civ Comm) London FIR (G) E
    2019318 Bell 412 (Civ Comm) Tutor (HQ Air Trg) Boscombe Down ATZ (G) C
    2019319 Squirrel (Civ Comm) Tutor (HQ Air Trg) Boscombe Down ATZ (G) C
    2019322 Hawk T2 (HQ Air Trg) Juno (HQ Air Trg) Valley CMATZ (G) C
    2019323 S92(A) (Civ Comm) S92(B) (Civ Comm) Scottish FIR (G) C
    Recommendation: The CAA considers reviewing the UK AIP, ENR 1.6, paragraph 4.5.5, to define the point at which the ‘lifting’ call is to be made.

  • Consolidated Drone/Balloon/Model/Unknown Object Report Sheet for UKAB Meeting on 22nd April 2020

    Contributory factor assessment for each Airprox can be downloaded here

     

    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    2 1 1 0 0 0

     

    Airprox

    Number 

    Date

    Time (UTC)            

    Aircraft

    (Operator)

    Object

    Location[1]

    Description

    Altitude

    Airspace

    (Class)

    Pilot/Controller Report

    Reported Separation

    Reported Risk

    Comments/Risk Statement

    ICAO

    Risk

    2020024

    5 Feb 20

    1645

    Saab340B

    (CAT)

    Drone

    N5558 W00320

    1nm Final Edinburgh

    300ft

    Edinburgh CTR

    (D)

    The Saab 340 pilot reports that a drone was observed on the starboard side at 1NM from touchdown and 300ft agl. The drone was parallel to the aircraft’s track, was medium sized and was red, white and blue in colour.

     

    Reported Separation: 50-100ft V/15ft H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Not reported

       

    In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or description of the object were sufficient to indicate that it could have been a drone.

     

    Applicable Contributory Factors: 1, 3, 4, 6

     

    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
    2020028

    12 Mar 20

    1657

    Pilatus

    (MOD ATEC)

    Drone

    5110N 00143W

    Boscombe Down

    800ft

    Boscombe Down MATZ

    (G)

    The Pilatus pilot reports that whilst conducting a PFL and about to roll out onto the final leg, he saw a drone co-altitude passing an estimated 30ft down the right-hand side of his aircraft.  The drone was silver/aluminium and discus shaped, but he could not distinguish any legs or propulsion. Both pilots saw it.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/ 30ft H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Low

     

    The Boscombe Runway Caravan Controller reports that the Pilatus turned finals and was cleared to touch and go.  He completed a gear check and then scanned the approach, as was normal practice. The pilot reported going around and he observed a large black drone in the approach, it seemed to be close to the airfield boundary at approximately 300ft.The drone was larger than a stereotypical image, with a raised middle and four propellers on each side.  He tracked the movement of the drone and reported its location to the Tower controller via intercom.  The drone tracked east, at some speed, remaining at the same height until it disappeared out of sight.

     

    The Boscombe Tower Controller reports that the Pilatus joined the visual circuit on a PFL, he called low-key with gear down and was cleared for a touch-and-go. When on short finals he reported going around due to a drone being in the approach, nothing was seen from the tower, however the Caravan controller reported seeing the drone.   An A109 pilot operating on the south-side of the airfield reported a white van on the disused railway line and believed the drone it could have been connected to it, although there was no evidence to prove it.

    In the Board’s opinion the descriptions of the object were sufficient to indicate that it could have been a drone.

     

    Applicable Contributory Factors: 1, 3, 4, 6

     

    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



    [1] Latitude and Longitude are usually only estimates that are based on the reported time of occurrence mapped against any available radar data for the aircraft’s position at that time. Because such reported times may be inaccurate, the associated latitudes and longitudes should therefore not be relied upon as precise locations of the event.