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
14 1 3 7 1 2
Assessed Airprox reports

Airprox

Aircraft 1 (Type)

Aircraft 2 (Type)

Airspace (Class)

ICAO Risk

2021092

P68 (Civ Comm)

PA38 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2021096

Extra 200 (Civ FW)

Spitfire (Civ FW)

Duxford ATZ (G)

E

2021098

C140 (Civ FW)

Harvard (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

D

2021099

SF340 (CAT)

C172 (Civ FW)

Scottish FIR (G)

E

2021100

Janus glider (Civ Gld)

AS355 (Civ Helo)

London FIR (G)

C

2021101

EC175 (Civ Comm)

Pitts (Civ FW)

Scottish FIR (G)

C

2021103

Duo Discus (Civ Gld)

Bell 407 (Civ Helo)

London FIR (G)

C

2021104

Spitfire (Civ FW)

PA34 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2021105

EV97 (Civ FW)

C177 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2021107

C152 (Civ FW)

 Casa Jungmann bi-plane (Civ FW)

Perth ATZ (G)

C

2021112

Cabri G2 (Civ Helo)

Bulldog (Civ FW)

Chichester / Goodwood ATZ (G)

C

2021113

PA34 (Civ FW)

Spitfire (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2021114

ASG29 (Civ Gld)

DA40 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

A

2021117

C152 (Civ FW)

Varieze (Civ FW)

Sleap ATZ (G)

B

 

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
9 3 3 3 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

2021195

16 Sep 21

1229

A319

(CAT)

Unk Obj

5128N 00016W

6NM E Heathrow

2000ft

London CTR

(D)

The A319 pilot reports that the aircraft was at an altitude of 2000ft, 6.3NM to touchdown, when a drone passed directly overhead the aircraft at a distance of approximately 100ft.

 

Reported Separation: 100ft V/ 0m H

Reported Risk of Collision: NR

 

The Heathrow Controller reports that the A319 pilot reported passing a drone when 6.3NM from touchdown.

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, 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

2021196

29 Aug 21

1452

A320

(CAT)

Drone

5129N 00033W

Colnbrook Reservoir

1000ft

London CTR (D)

The A320 pilot reports that, on final for RW09L, between 900ft and 1000ft rad-alt, the First Officer saw a blue drone at the 1 o’clock position, extremely close to the aircraft (the FO thought an impact was highly likely). ATC was informed and a normal landing followed. On the gate, the crew was interviewed by the Police, who took a statement. Other aircraft also reported a similar drone at a similar location. [UKAB Note: It was subsequently confirmed by the NATS investigation that the crew of the following aircraft did NOT sight the reported drone.]

 

Reported Separation: NR

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.

 

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 providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of collision had existed.

A

2021198

27 Sep 21

1600

Hawk

(HQ Air Ops)

Unk obj

5447N 00006W

60NM ENE Leeming

9000ft

London FIR

(G)

The Hawk pilot reports that after a 2v1 merge, on climb-out they saw what initially looked like a piece of the other aircraft fall off, the other aircraft had flown directly over the object. As they were about to transmit, they were able to give it a closer inspection. The object appeared to be Silver/Grey and stationary at approx 9000ft amsl. They discounted it as a piece of the other aircraft as it was far too big and the other aircraft was still flying. The object passed about 500ft down the left-hand side of the aircraft. They assumed that the object was a drone. They informed the other aircraft of the occurrence. Coincidentally, there was a very large surface vessel which appeared to be towing an array of sorts. It was located about 10NM away from the formation, heading southeast. As a formation they discussed the likeliness of the drone to be associated with the surface vessel, and subsequently moved location for the next fight to the west, a considerable distance away from the surface vessel. Post their final fight, the drone was once again spotted by the rear-seat pilot of another aircraft in the formation. It was significantly further west than its original location, and now at 7000ft amsl. The wind in that location was northerly at a considerable speed. Leeming App was informed on handover, who then informed Swanwick Mil of the occurrence.

 

Reported Separation: 500ft V/ 500ft H

Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

 

HQ Air Command Comments: This Airprox was subject to a Local Investigation and was a difficult report to investigate. Swanwick(Mil) was approached for comment but reported nothing seen on radar nor had record of anyone else booked into the area. Enquiries with a Norwegian research vessel working in the North Sea and HMS Prince of Wales indicated that neither had drones flying in the area or at the time of the reported Airprox. The investigation could not therefore confirm whether the object was a drone. Drone or not, and without prior notice of its presence, see and avoid remained the only barrier to collision. The object was spotted by the second aircraft after the first had overflown its position; no avoiding action was required by the second aircraft and it is not known how close the first aircraft got to the object. The pilot’s actions were correct in reporting the sighting to the first aircraft and air traffic control as soon as possible.

 

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 although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision.

C

2021200

29 Sep 21

1002

PA28

(Civ FW)

Drone

5200N 00028W

1NM east of Flitwick

2500ft

London FIR

(G)

The PA28 pilot reports that they saw a small, brightly shining object just in front of the left wingtip. Initially, they thought it was an aircraft further away, but it became immediately apparent that it was a drone flying at the same altitude, fast, just off the wingtip. By the time they had realised this, it had passed behind the aircraft and ceased to be a risk; there was no time to take avoiding action. The Airprox was reported to Cranfield, who were advised that a report would be filed.

 

Reported Separation: 0ft V/80m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

 

The Cranfield controller reports that they received a transmission from the PA28 pilot, who was transiting the airspace on a Basic Service. They were advised that the aircraft had just flown past a drone at 2500ft, 1NM to the east of Flitwick. The controller advised them that there was no known activity in that area but noted down the details and asked the assistant to report the drone sighting to the police and to call Luton Radar to advise them of the drone activity.

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, 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

2021204

7 Oct 21

1135

AW109

(HEMS)

Drone

5243N 00115W

6.5NM SSE East Mids

800ft

London FIR

(G)

The AW109 pilot reports that they were on a HEMS flight flying from the primary site in Castle Donnington to Glenfield hospital. The HEMS crew were travelling by land, the pilot was alone travelling to hospital for crew pickup. They crossed RW27 East Midlands north to south at the DHL apron area and took a direct track over the Charnwood forest hills. Approximately overhead West Beacon Farm helipad, at 750-800ft radalt, a stationary object was spotted at 12 o'clock same height. Avoiding action taken by descending, the object was seen to be a 'quadcopter' style drone white in colour. The drone passed directly overhead estimated 20-30ft above the aircraft. The drone was not NOTAM'd and was outside controlled airspace. After avoiding action, the flight continued to Glenfield without further incident.

 

Reported Separation: 20ft V/ 0m 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, 2, 4, 7

 

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

2021207

12 Sep 21

1502

DHC-8

(CAT)

Drone

5706N 00207W

Aberdeen

2300ft

Aberdeen CTR

(D)

The Dash 8 pilot reports that a drone was sighted crossing from right-to-left in front of the aircraft when they were established on the ILS for RW34 at Aberdeen. The aircraft was at a range of 6.5NM from touchdown and a height of 2300ft.

 

Reported Separation: 0ft V/30-50m H

Reported Risk of Collision: NR

 

The Aberdeen controller reports that at 1505 they received a call from the ADC controller advising that [the Dash 8 pilot] had reported sighting a drone between a 6NM and 4NM final for RW34 at 2300ft. Due to the positioning of the sighting, they elected to stop all departures and arrivals until further information could be obtained. [The Dash 8 pilot] continued their approach and landing. Departures were resumed at 1515. Following consultation with MATC and Airside ops, it was agreed to resume VFR arrivals for RW32 at 1530 and then normal operations for all runways at 1535. In the following 30min, no further sightings had been reported. Following the incident, further information became apparent that the crew of [the Dash 8] had seen the drone fly over their starboard wing, crossing right-to-left.

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 safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

B

2021214

8 Oct 21

1619

A320

(CAT)

Drone

5109N 00003W

IVO Gatwick

4000ft

London TMA

(A)

The A320 pilot reports that they climbed above the cloud layer, when the PF (in the left-hand seat) spotted an object in the lower side of the front window. On getting closer they could see it was a black drone with two red lights. There was no time to react and it disappeared beneath them.

 

Reported Separation: 50ft V/ 0m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

 

The Swanwick Controller reports that the A320 pilot reported sighting a drone after departing from Gatwick on an ODVIK SID. The pilot reported seeing a black drone with two red lights pass just beneath them at they came out of cloud at 4000ft.

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 providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of collision had existed.

A

2021215

10 Oct 21

1316

B737

(CAT)

Drone

5219N 00136W

Kenilworth

3300ft

Birmingham CTA

(D)

The B737 pilot reports that, at 3300ft and 9NM on final for the ILS to RW33, a drone was sighted in their 2 o’clock, passing down the right-hand side of the aircraft. The drone looked to be a recreational drone, medium sized and black in colour. The whole event only lasted about 3sec, during which time they established that it would not conflict with the aircraft’s flightpath. The sighting was reported to the Tower controller.

 

Reported Separation: 0ft V/20m H

Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

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 safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

B

2021216

11 Oct 21

1642

B737

(CAT)

Balloon

5306N 00135W

2.5NM SW Matlock

FL097

DTY CTA

(A)

The B737 pilot reports that during their descent, they were passing about FL97 just to the north of TNT VOR, both flight crew were briefly startled by a white/black object which passed above and slightly to the right of the aircraft. The object was only visible for 1-2sec, but they estimated it was about 500ft above them. The FO believed the object may have been a helium balloon. On landing the following aircraft, who had flown the same approach, advised ATC that they wished to file a report of a drone sighting during their approach. This gave them cause to believe the object they had seen may have been a drone and so they too reported that to ATC.

 

Reported Separation: 500ft V/0.25NM

Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

 

The Prestwick controller reports that the B737 was following the DAYNE2A arrival. No information was passed to ATC at the time of the event and the pilot reported it on another frequency.

In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude or description of the object, including the crew’s initial impression, were sufficient to indicate that it was probably a balloon.

 

Applicable Contributory Factors: 4, 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

[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. December reports are now available
  2. Airprox Digest 2021 - Winter Edition

View all latest news