Assessment Summary Sheet
Contributory factor assessment for each assessed Airprox can be downloaded.
| Total | Risk A | Risk B | Risk C | Risk D | Risk 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 Summary Sheet
Contributory factor assessment for each Drone/Balloon/Model/Unknown Object Airprox can be downloaded.
| 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.