Assessment Summary Sheet
Contributory factor assessment for each assessed Airprox can be downloaded.
| Total | Risk A | Risk B | Risk C | Risk D | Risk E |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| Airprox | Aircraft 1 (Type) | Aircraft 2 (Type) | Airspace (Class) | ICAO Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020036 |
14 Mar 20 1323 |
B747 (CAT) |
Drone |
N5106 W00013 LGW 260°/1NM 400ft |
Gatwick CTR (D) |
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. |
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.