UK Airprox Board UK Airprox Board
  • Assessment Summary Sheet for UKAB Meeting on Wednesday 18th March 2020

    Contributory factor assessment for each Airprox can be downloaded here

     

    Total A B C D E
    18 2 3 10 0 3

     

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

    ICAO

    Risk

    2019212 PA28 (Civ FW) Cavalon Autogyro (Civ Helo) Halfpenny Green ATZ B
    2019268 B787 (CAT) R44 (Civ Helo) London CTR (D) C
    2019271 SF25 (Civ FW) AS355 (Civ Helo) London FIR (G) C
    2019274 B737 (CAT) DR1050 (Civ FW) Doncaster CTR (D) C
    2019279 Super Emeraude (Civ FW) PA28 (Civ FW) Gloucestershire ATZ (G) C
    2019280 Slingsby Firefly (Civ FW) SR22 (Civ Comm) London FIR (G) C
    2019281 PA28 (Civ FW) Aviat Husky (Civ FW) London FIR (G) C
    2019282 HpH 304 Shark S (Civ Gld) DA62 (Civ FW) London FIR (G) A
    Recommendation: Kent Gliding Club and Lydd Airport establish a Letter of Agreement to address the risk of concurrent activities in the same volume of airspace.
    2019283 EV97 (Civ FW) PA28 (Civ FW) London FIR (G) A
    2019284 Chipmunk (Civ FW) Tecnam Sierra (Civ FW) Middle Wallop ATZ (G) C
    2019285 Do328 (CAT) Spitfire (Civ FW) London FIR (G) C
    2019287 PA28 (Civ FW) Jet Provost (Civ FW) Nottingham ATZ (G) C
    Recommendation: Nottingham/Tollerton airfield to consider publishing procedures for the integration of faster jet aircraft with other circuit traffic.
    2019290 C152 (Civ FW) C182 (Civ FW) London FIR (G) C
    2019291 Falcon 900 (Civ Comm) LS8 (Civ Gld) London FIR (G) B
    2019293 C560 (Civ Comm) Light Aircraft (Civ FW) London FIR (G) E
    2019294 PA25/DG 505 (Civ Gld) PA34 (Civ FW) London FIR (G) E
    Recommendation: The BGA reiterate guidance to gliding clubs regarding the significant mitigation to mid-air collision afforded by fitment of SSR transponders to tug aircraft.
    2019296 S92 (Civ Comm) Typhoon (HQ Air Ops) Scottish FIR (G) E
    2019297 MD500 (Civ Comm) Prefect (HQ Air Trg) London FIR (G) B

  • Consolidated Drone/Balloon/Model/Unknown Object Report Sheet for UKAB Meeting on 18th March 2020

    Contributory factor assessment for each Airprox can be downloaded here

     

    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    4 0 0 3 0 1

     

    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

    2020011

    29 Jan 20

    1100                                                                        

    A319

    (CAT)

    Unk Obj                                                                                  

    5110N 00015W

    5nm W Gatwick

    2000ft

    Gatwick CTR

    (D)

    The A319 pilot reports that they were at a busy phase of the flight, configuring for landing, the Captain was flying and the NHP spotted the drone.  There was NOTAM’d drone activity, and this was broadcast on the ATIS, so the Captain first thought that was what had been spotted. However, this drone was positioned on the centreline for RW26L and passed overhead the aircraft.  They reported it to ATC.  The drone was square in shape and he was unable to identify if it had propellers, it was white with a black underbelly and looked plastic because the sun was reflecting from it.

     

    Reported Separation: 1000ftV/ 0m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

     

    A Gatwick Investigation reports that the A319 pilot reported seeing a drone when on 5.5nm finals.  There was known drone activity operating at 2nm south-east at the time and this information was broadcast on the ATIS. Drone command investigated and found no evidence of a drone in that area.

    In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or description of the object were such that they were unable to determine the nature of the unknown object.

     

    Applicable Contributory Factors: 7

     

    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
    2020012

    2 Feb 20

    1354

    EMB 190

    (CAT)

    Unk Obj

    5132N 00036E

    Southend-on-Sea

    FL85

    London TMA

    (A)

    The EMB 190 pilot reports that a drone was sighted to the south of SODVU whilst on a heading instructed by ATC. Having been cleared to climb to FL110 from FL80, while passing FL85 the First Officer spotted a 'grey' drone to the right-hand side of the aircraft. The drone was reported to ATC and the crew continued as per ATC’s initial instruction.

     

    Reported Separation: 500ft V/<0.5nm H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Low

     

    The NATS Swanwick Investigation reports that the EMB 190 pilot reported passing a drone when passing FL85 in the climb, grey in colour, 5nm south of SODVU. The pilot subsequently reported this as an Airprox. The controller attempted to obtain further information relating to the sighting. Subsequent aircraft in the vicinity were advised of the report, however there were no other sightings. Safety Investigations reviewed the radar at the time the pilot of the EMB 190 reported the sighting, however, no radar contacts were visible.

    In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or description of the object were such that they were unable to determine the nature of the unknown object.

     

    Applicable Contributory Factors: 7

     

    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
    2020021

    17 Feb 20

    1832                                                                                    

    B757

    (CAT)

    Unk Obj

    5348N 00134W

    SE Leeds Bradford

    2300ft

    Leeds CTR

    (D)

    The B757 pilot reports that he was on final approach to RW32 at Leeds Bradford, it was dark and there was a 34kt crosswind and showers in the vicinity.  They were underneath a main cloud layer when it became apparent that there was an event taking place in Leeds city centre.  It was to the right of the aircraft as they made their approach and he could make out a Ferris wheel and lots of bright lights.  Focusing on monitoring the approach there appeared to be fireworks or bright flashing lights to his right where the event was taking place. He looked right and noticed a single red light hovering above the event, which he believed to be a drone.  It was hovering at an altitude of somewhere between 500ft and 1000ft.  He estimated that it was between 500-1000ft away from his aircraft.  On landing he reported the drone sighting to ATC.

     

    Reported Separation: 500-1000ft H

     

    In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or description of the object were such that they were unable to determine the nature of the unknown object.

     

    Applicable Contributory Factors: 8

     

    Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where normal procedures and/or safety standards had applied.

    E
    2020023

    23 Feb 20

    1239

    Q400

    (CAT)

    Unk Obj

    5321N 00156W

    12nm E Manchester

    5000ft

    Daventry CTA

    (D)

    The Q400 pilot reports on first contacting Manchester, they were given information about a drone report from another pilot, in a different location.  A short time later a red metallic drone was sighted to the left and below the aircraft, on a reciprocal heading.  The sighting was over in a very short space of time and although it was very obvious all he could identify was that it was a red metallic drone, he couldn’t see any distinguishing features.

     

    Reported Separation: 300ft V/ 150m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: None

    In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or description of the object were such that they were unable to determine the nature of the unknown object.

     

    Applicable Contributory Factors: 7

     

    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



    [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.