We use necessary cookies to make our website work. We'd also like to use optional analytics cookies to help us improve it.
For more information, please read our cookie policy.

Assessment Summary Sheet

Contributory factor assessment for each assessed Airprox can be downloaded.

Number of Airprox reports assessed, and their ICAO Risk rating
Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
23 3 5 11 0 4
Assessed Airprox reports
Airprox Aircraft 1 (Type) Aircraft 2 (Type) Airspace (Class) ICAO Risk
2019177 Paraglider (Civ Gld) Hughes 500 (Civ Helo) London FIR (G) C
2019193 Prefect (HQ Air Trg) Extra 300 (Civ FW) London FIR (G) B
2019196 ASW Glider (Civ Gld) DA42 (Civ FW) London FIR (G) E
2019199 Tutor (HQ Air Trg) Ventus Glider (Civ Gld) London FIR (G) B
2019201 RV12 (Civ FW) P68 (Civ Comm) London FIR (G) A

Recommendations:

1. The P68 operating company considers further mitigations to MAC for survey operations.

2. The CAA to consider mandating additional cockpit crew to enable enhanced lookout for single-pilot survey operations.

2019208 P68 (Civ Comm) PA28 (Civ FW) London FIR (G) E

Recommendations:

1. The P68 operating company considers further mitigations to MAC for survey operations.

2. The CAA to consider mandating additional cockpit crew to enable enhanced lookout for single-pilot survey operations.

2019209 A320 (CAT) BE200 (Civ Comm) Manchester TMA (A) C
2019210 PA34 (Civ FW) C206 (Civ FW) London FIR (G) C
Recommendation: Gloucestershire Airport to clarify their AIP entry regarding departure procedures.
2019215 DJI Phantom 4 (Civ UAS) Avenger T Mk1 (RN) London FIR (G) E
2019216 Miles Whitney (Civ FW) Extra 330 (Civ FW) London FIR (G) A
2019217 PA22 (Civ FW) PA28 (Civ FW) London FIR (G) A
2019218 R22 (Civ Helo) PA38 (Civ FW) Doncaster CTR (D) C
2019220 C150 (Civ FW) Quik Flex-wing (Civ FW) London FIR (G) C
2019221 Pietenpol Aircamper (Civ FW) C208 (Civ FW) Old Sarum ATZ (G) C
Recommendation: Old Sarum to review their AIP entry to ensure coherence with the Old Sarum website and proprietary flight guide information.
2019224 Mooney M20 (Civ FW) Unknown Light Aircraft London FIR (G) B
2019225 P68 (Civ Comm) C172 (Civ FW) London FIR (G) C
2019226 P68 (Civ Comm) PA28 (Civ FW) London FIR (G) C

Recommendations:

1. The P68 operating company considers further mitigations to MAC for survey operations.

2. The CAA to consider mandating additional cockpit crew to enable enhanced lookout for single-pilot survey operations.

2019227 C404 (Civ Comm) Unknown Glider London FIR (G) E

Recommendations:

1. The C404 operating company considers further mitigations to MAC for survey operations.

2. The CAA to consider mandating additional cockpit crew to enable enhanced lookout for single-pilot survey operations.

2019228 C172 (Civ FW) C152 (Civ FW) London FIR (G) C
2019229 C150 (Civ FW) AA-5 (Civ FW) London FIR (G) C
2019230 Jabiru UL450 (Civ FW) Hurricane (Civ FW) London FIR (G) B
2019236 PW-5 Glider (Civ Gld) SF260 (Civ FW) London FIR (G) B
2019237 Cabri G2 (Civ Helo) C152 (Civ FW) London FIR (G) C

 

Consolidated Drone/Balloon/Model/Unknown Object Summary Sheet

Contributory factor assessment for each Drone/Balloon/Model/Unknown Object Airprox can be downloaded.

Number of Drone/Balloon/Model/Unknown Object reports, and their ICAO Risk rating
Total Risk A Risk B Risk C Risk D Risk E
8 1 5 1 1 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
2019302

21 Oct 19

1422

Wildcat

(RN)

Unk Obj

5107N 00224W

VLN 055R/11nm

1600ft

London FIR

(G)

The Wildcat pilot reports that, having departed RNAS Yeovilton MATZ to the NE on a heading of 055 at an altitude of 1600ft on the RPS, a small metallic object was seen by the crew member in the aircraft cabin. The object was seen to pass down the port side of the aircraft, at a similar height, with a lateral separation of approximately 2 rotor discs.

 

Reported Separation: 0ft V/100ft H

Reported Risk of Collision: Low

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: 5

 

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
2019320

14 Nov 19

1158

PA28

(Civ FW)

Drone

5627N 00252W

5nm E Dundee Airport

1700ft

Scottish FIR

(G)

The PA28 pilot reports that he was descending through 1700ft towards Broughty Castle VRP when a white drone with 4 props and lights came within 50m of his aircraft. He took a small avoiding action turn to the left and the drone flew beneath his right wing in the opposite direction.  He reported it to Dundee Tower.

 

Reported Separation: 50ft 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, 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
2019321

1 Nov 19

2215

DJI Inspire

(Drone)

Drone

5135N 00007W

Alexandra Palace London

400ft

 

London FIR

(G)

The DJI Inspire Operator reports he was flying a drone to assist with counter terrorism and public safety at Alexandra Palace Fireworks Festival.  There was a 2nm RA(T) up to 2000ft in place for any drone use apart from those approved by the event organisers and the police. Prior to the fireworks the counter terrorism drone detection system detected a drone take-off within the RA(T), it flew over the helipad at 200ft and conducted a static hover.  It then flew off. At 2100hrs the fireworks display commenced, during which he got his drone airborne. The other drone then reappeared and undertook flight manoeuvres to ram his drone.  This consisted of run-ups from 50m away, then flying at high speed towards his drone.  This was observed by the entire team and the Met Police Officer who was stood beside them.  He took avoiding action by conducting an unplanned rapid descent for an emergency landing, without which he believed the two drones would have collided.

 

Reported Separation: 0ft V/ 3-5m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

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, 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
2019324

2 Dec 19

1000

A321

(CAT)

Drone

5153N 00032W

10nm north BNN Hold

FL100

London TMA

(A)

The A321 pilot reports that he was on a normal departure out of Heathrow and climbing towards his cruising levels. Very good weather, with little to no cloud and very good visibility in all directions. Just after passing through the BNN hold at about FL100, the FO spotted a suspected drone, black with silver elements shaped like a top hat with a prominent central 'bump', about 200ft in front of the aircraft passing down the right-hand side. It was difficult to accurately judge the exact distance and size relative to the aircraft. His best guess was about 200-250ft laterally and roughly 50ft below the flight path of the aircraft. No avoiding action was taken because the encounter and visual sighting only lasted for a couple of seconds. The event was immediately reported on the radio frequency in use and further reported later on the day of occurrence via the company safety reporting system.

 

Reported Separation:  50ft V/ 200ft 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, 2, 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
2019325

30 Nov 19

1818

A319

(CAT)

Unk Obj

5128N 00033W

3nm final LHR RW09L

1000ft

London CTR

(D)

The A319 pilot reports that, while approaching to land on RW09L at LHR, a drone passed underneath the aircraft at a position three miles out from the runway. Green/blue lights were observed for a fleeting moment. The sighting was reported to ATC who then passed the information on to other

aircraft.

 

Reported Separation: <50ft V/0ft H

Reported Severity of Risk: High

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: 5

 

Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where there was insufficient information to make a sound judgement of risk. The incident took place at night where visual assessment of separation of observed lights can be problematic.

D
2019331

2 Dec 19

1610

A320

(CAT)

Drone

5128N 00022W

3nm final LHR RW27R

900ft

London CTR

(D)

The A320 pilot reports that the aircraft was on short final at 3nm, established on the ILS to RW27R. A drone was spotted off the right-hand side of aircraft at an altitude of approximately 1000ft (around 100ft above the aircraft). ATC was informed, and the approach and landing were continued normally.

 

Reported Separation: 100ft V/NR H

Reported Severity of Risk: High

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, 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
2019332

9 Dec 19

1400

A380

(CAT)

Unk Obj

5204N 00109W

IVO Silverstone

FL140

Daventry CTA

(A)

The A380 pilot reports that after departure from Birmingham and in the climb through FL140 for FL210 both crew members noticed a very fast- moving object, later confirmed to be a drone, at the same level.  It passed very close to the left-hand side of the aircraft, within 100m, slightly below the wing, but no contact was encountered.  ATC were notified.  The drone was silver, 2-3m and was moving in a northerly direction.

 

Reported Separation: NR V/100m H

Reported Risk of Collision: NR

 

The Swanwick Controller reports that the A380 pilot reported seeing a drone when passing FL150 and heading south-east.  He reported the drone to be sliver and 1 to 2m in diameter.  The incident was reported to the police.

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: 5

 

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
2019334

30 Dec 19

1013

AW169

(HEMS)

2 x drone

5326N 00111W

Approach to SNG Hospital

1200ft

London FIR

(G)

The AW169 pilot reports that he was routing to Sheffield Northern General (SNG) Hospital from the east, transiting below the Doncaster CTA at 1000ft, when the paramedic spotted 2 x white drones under the right-hand side of the aircraft. The drones were in the hover.

 

Reported Separation: 100ft V/30m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or description of the objects were sufficient to indicate that they could have been drones.

 

Applicable Contributory Factors: 1, 2, 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.

Latest from UK Airprox Board

  1. March reports are now available
  2. Airprox Digest 2021 - Winter Edition

View all latest news