UK Airprox Board UK Airprox Board
  • Assessment Summary Sheet for UKAB Meeting on Wednesday 11th November 2020

    Contributory factor assessment for each Airprox can be downloaded here

     

    Total A B C D E
    15 1 4 7 0 3

     

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

    ICAO

    Risk

    2020082 LS6 (Civ Gld) PA34 (Civ FW) London FIR (G) A
    2020083 EC135 (Civ FW) LS4 (Civ Gld) London FIR (G) C
    Recommendation: The CAA includes Glider Site ICFs, as supplied by the BGA, in the UK AIP ENR 5.5.
    2020084 C680 (Civ Comm) PA46 (Civ FW)

    London TMA (A)

    London FIR (G)

    E
    2020085 C42 (Civ FW) C42 (Civ FW) Gloucestershire ATZ (G) B
    2020086 AW169 (HEMS) DR107 (Civ FW) London FIR (G) C
    Recommendation: The CAA reviews the Southend ATC Safety Case activity to ensure that it includes robust mitigations for the known incompatibility between the SSR processor and Garrecht-type transponders.
    2020087 Tutor (HQ Air Trg) F15 (Foreign Mil) London FIR (G) C
    2020088 Atlas (MoD ATEC)

    Unknown Aircraft

    (Unknown)

    London FIR (G) C
    2020089 ASG29 (Civ Gld) PC12 (Civ Comm) London FIR (G) C
    2020090 Astir (Civ Gld) Beech C23 (Civ FW) London FIR (G) C
    2020091 Cabri G2 (Civ Helo) PA28 (Civ FW) Kemble ATZ E
    2020092 BE200 (Civ Comm) Duo Discus (Civ Gld) London FIR (G) E
    2020093 Skyranger (Civ FW) PA28 (Civ FW) Scottish FIR (G) C
    2020094 C152 (Civ FW) C182 (Civ FW) Coventry ATZ B
    2020095 Juno (HQ Air Trg) Be55 (Civ FW) London FIR (G) B
    2020096 2x F15 (Foreign Mil)

    2x Unknown Aircraft

    (Civ Gld)

    London FIR (G) B

  • Consolidated Drone/Balloon/Model/Unknown Object Summary Sheet for UKAB Meeting on 11th Nov 2020

    Contributory factor assessment for each Airprox can be downloaded here

     

    Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
    6 2 0 4 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

    2020135

    24 Sep 20

    0800   

    A321

    (CAT)

    Drone

    5127N 0004W

    15NM E Heathrow

    4500ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The A321 pilot reports that they were on final to Heathrow RW27L, when at 4500ft a drone was spotted. It was to the right of the aircraft, at the same altitude and about 50-100m away. It was reported as medium sized, dark in colour (black or blue) and had something below the drone, perhaps a camera. It was reported to Tower.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/50-100m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Low

     

    The Heathrow controller reports that on first contact with the A321 pilot, they reported seeing a drone at 4500ft, to the right of the aircraft about 100m away. Subsequent aircraft were informed, as were the police.

    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, 2, 3, 4, 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
    2020140

    25 Sep 20

    0942

    Tutor

    (RN)

    Drone

    5100N 00221W

    10NM E Yeovilton

    2000ft agl

       

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Tutor pilot reports that they were in the right-hand seat acting as safety pilot for another QFI conducting a PAR approach under the hood in VMC. At 2000ft QFE (1004hPa), 10.7NM east of Yeovilton, heading about 280°, they were briefly visual with a UAV which unmasked to the right of the coaming and rapidly disappeared underneath down the right-hand side of the aircraft. The UAV a possible quadcopter, about 1m across, coloured blue and yellow; it passed approximately 100ft below them displaced right (north) by around 50m. Brief details of the event were passed to Yeovilton Radar for logging and an Airprox report initiated post landing to minimise disruption to the sortie flow.

     

    Reported Separation: 100ft V/50m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Low

    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, 2, 4, 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
    2020142

    16 Sep 20

    1300

    Hawk

    (MoD ATEC)

    Model ac

    5028N 00413W

    8NM NNW Plymouth

    300ft agl

    London FIR

    (G)

    The Hawk pilot reports conducting a low-level currency sortie, routing between 2 microlight sites. The front seat handling pilot saw a small model aircraft (estimated as having a 2-3' wingspan) directly ahead at the same level. A 5g break was conducted away from the model aircraft which was estimated to pass 200-300ft down the right-hand side of the now belly-up, Hawk. A useful lesson learnt was that it took the pilot 2-3secs to realise that the observed aircraft was indeed a model and was therefore much smaller and much closer than initially estimated. With more UASs/model aircraft around, it is a worthwhile reminder to "create the miss" immediately and then observe later.

     

    Reported Separation: 0ft V/2-300ft H

    Reported Risk of Collision: Low

    In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or description of the object were sufficient to indicate that it was probably a model aircraft.

     

    Applicable Contributory Factors: 4, 6

     

    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
    2020144

    11 Oct 20

    1509

    SR22

    (Civ Fw)

    Drone

    5118N 00001E

    2.5NM SW Biggin Hill

    1600ft

    London FIR

    (G)

    The SR22 pilot reports that they were on an extended left base for RW03 at Biggin Hill, level and reducing speed, when a drone was sighted as it whizzed past the right-hand-side just above the wingtip. The Airprox occurred above a paraglider site, the site is normally dormant, but on this day, there were many colourful canopies on the ground and there had been a promulgated NOTAM about parachute/paraglider activity for a festival there two days prior (9th Oct). The pilot opined that the drone was filming the festival. Biggin Hill Ops and the police were informed. The drone was about 50cm square and 30cm deep, dark in colour and was probably stationary.

     

    Reported Separation: 5ft V/ 15M H

    Reported Risk of Collision: None

     

    The Biggin Hill controller reports that the SR22 was joining left base for RW03 when the pilot reported a drone about 2.6NM southwest of Biggin Hill, operating at 1700ft. The pilot thought that the drone was operating from the same area as the Warlingham paragliders. The police were informed.

    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. The Board also considered it unlikely that the drone would have been associated with the paragliders because the reported altitude of the drone was well above any paragliding activity and hence not amenable to filming.

     

    Applicable Contributory Factors: 1, 2, 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
    2020148

    10 Oct 20

    1527

    C510

    (Civ Comm)

    Unk Obj

    5129N 00035E

    2NM S Canvey Island

    4000ft

    London TMA

    (A)

    The C510 pilot reports that they were flying on vectors for an ILS approach to Biggin Hill. They were at 4000ft on the QNH of 1022hPa when they suddenly saw a flying object at their 11 o’clock position. It was not on their flightpath, but they passed it at a distance of about 50m from their left wing. They advised Thames Radar about the sighting and filed an Airprox report.

     

    Reported Separation: NK V/50m H

    Reported Risk of Collision: NR

     

    The NATS Safety Investigation reports that the pilot described the encounter as “it looked like a drone, it was quite stable, we overtook it and we had it with our left wing.” Analysis of the radar indicated that there were no associated primary or secondary contacts visible on radar at the approximate time of the event.

     

    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: 4, 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
    2020150

    16 Oct 20

    1126

    A321

    (CAT)

    Unk Obj

    5128N 00024W

    1NM E LHR

    1700ft

    London CTR

    (D)

    The A321 pilot reports that during the take-off roll RW09R LHR on DET 1J departure an ATC broadcast was made of a drone sighting 2NM east of the airfield. This information was repeated directly to the aircraft pilot once airborne. Autopilot was engaged and lookout maintained. Upon passing 3000ft at LON 3NM during a right-turn a bright red object was observed passing down the left-hand side of the aircraft about 20ft off the left wing. Due to the speed of passing they were unable to ascertain whether it was a helium balloon or a drone. ATC were informed.

     

    Reported Separation: NR V/20ft H

    Reported Risk of Collision: NR

    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: 4, 5

     

    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



    [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.