UK Airprox Board UK Airprox Board
  • Assessment Summary Sheet for UKAB Meeting on Wednesday 17th June 2020

    Contributory factor assessment for each Airprox can be downloaded here


    Total A B C D E
    10 0 4 4 1 1


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



    2020008 MD 902 (Civ Helo) Kite (Civ UAS) London FIR (G) B
    2020010 DA40 (Civ FW) Unk Light ac (Civ FW) London FIR (G) B
    2020014 PA28 (Civ FW) R44 (Civ Helo) White Waltham ATZ (G) B
    2020017 CL600 (Civ Comm) Mooney M20J (Civ FW) London FIR (G) C
    2020018 Phenom (HQ Air Trg) Tutor (HQ Air Trg) RAF Cranwell ATZ (G) B
    2020019 Tutor (HQ Air Trg) DA42 (Civ FW) Cosford ATZ (G) C
    2020020 A320 (CAT) A380 (CAT) London TMA (A) C
    2020022 ASK21 Glider (Civ Gld) MD500 (Civ Helo) Luton CTR (D) E
    2020026 DA42 (Civ FW) C152 (Civ FW) Southend CTR (D) C
    2020031 DJI Mavic 2 (Civ UAS) Cabri G2 (Civ Helo) London FIR (G) D

  • Consolidated Drone/Balloon/Model/Unknown Object Report Sheet for UKAB Meeting on 17th June 2020

    Contributory factor assessment for each Airprox can be downloaded here


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





    Time (UTC)           









    Pilot/Controller Report

    Reported Separation

    Reported Risk

    Comments/Risk Statement




    14 Mar 20





    N5106 W00013

    LGW 260°/1NM


    Gatwick CTR


    The B747 crewmember reports looking out of a cabin window around 1 minute after take-off and sighting a drone approximately 100-150m away from the aircraft and approximately 100m below. The crewmember states that, as a former drone operator, they recognised the make of the drone.


    Reported Separation: 330ftV/100-150m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: NR

    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. However, in order to positively identify the make some members felt that the assessment of separation from the aircraft may have been overestimated. Ultimately, the Board agreed that the drone had likely been closer to the aircraft than the distance estimated by the reporter.


    Applicable Contributory Factors: 1, 3, 4, 6


    Risk: The Board considered that the crewmember’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.



    [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.