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
17 2 3 11 1 0
Assessed Airprox reports

Airprox

Aircraft 1 (Type)

Aircraft 2 (Type)

Airspace (Class)

ICAO

Risk

2021206

C182 (Civ FW)

C208 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2021210

DJI Matrice 200 v2 (Civ UAS)

Unk light-aircraft (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

D

2021211

Cirrus Glider (Civ Gld)

Europa (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2021212

C182 (Civ FW)

Bolkow 209 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2021213

Tutor (RN)

PA28 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2021217

S92 (Civ Comm)

C12 Huron (Foreign Mil)

Scottish FIR (G)

C

2021218

Robinson R22 (Civ Helo)

Van’s RV6 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

A

2021220

Spitfire T9 (Civ Comm)

C340 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

A

2021223

P68 (Civ FW)

Unk light-aircraft (Unknown)

London FIR (G)

C

2021225

Gnat (Civ FW)

Robin (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2021227

Tutor (HQ Air Trg)

Prefect (HQ Air Trg)

London FIR (G)

C

2021228

Voyager (HQ Air Ops)

Bulldog (Civ FW)

Brize Norton CTR (D)

C

2021230

PA28(1) (Civ FW)

PA28(2) (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2021231

Prefect (HQ Air Trg)

Tutor (HQ Air Trg)

Wittering ATZ (G)

C

2021233

Chinook (HQ JHC)

HPH Shark (Civ Gld)

London FIR (G)

C

2021234

C172 (Civ FW)

PA28 (Civ FW)

Stapleford ATZ (G)

B

2021239

Apache (HQ AAC)

C150 (Civ FW)

Duxford ATZ (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
6 1 1 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

2022023

06 Mar 22

1252

T67 Firefly

(Civ FW)

Drone

5228N 00227W

4NM S of Bridgnorth

3200ft

London FIR

(G)

The Firefly pilot reports that, whilst heading north, they saw a small object in the sky converging at the same level. At first, it was thought to be a bird, but they passed within 300ft of it, and it was clearly seen to be a small black drone. They immediately reported the sighting on Halfpenny Green Information for the information of pilots of other local aircraft. They were flying at 3000ft on the QNH. The drone was also spotted by their passenger. NOTAMs were checked and there was nothing reported for that area.

 

Reported Separation: 300ft V/300ft H

Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

 

The Halfpenny Green AFISO reports that they acknowledged the report of the drone sighting from the Firefly pilot and had no further involvement in the event.

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

2022027

08 Mar 22

0844

B787

(CAT)

Unk Obj

5139N 00016E

1.5NM east of LAM

8400ft

LTMA

(A)

 

The B787 pilot reports that at 0842, when leaving the LAM VOR (after once around the hold), on heading 260° and descending past 8500ft, a

possible drone (white) passed about 100m down the right-hand side of the aircraft at the same level. There were no actions taken by the flight crew and the flight continued with a safe landing at LHR. London ATC were informed and police once on the gate. Later a cabin crew member confirmed that they also saw the drone out of a door window.

 

Reported Separation: 0ft V/100m H

Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

 

NATS safety investigations report that the pilot of [B787 had] reported sighting a large object which had flown down their right-hand side, at FL84 1.5NM east of LAM. The pilot stated that they weren’t sure if the sighting was a bird but, as there wasn’t any other bird activity noted, they believed it could have been a drone. The controller made a general broadcast to all aircraft on the INT North frequency informing them of the drone report. The controller stated that they also informed the Heathrow Tower controller of the sighting, and that they had advised that they would report it to the Airport Police.

Analysis of the radar by Safety Investigations 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, 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

2022031

15 Mar 22

0852

A320

(CAT)

Drone

5142N 00031W

Belsize

8000ft

 

London TMA

(A)

The A320 pilot reports having just left the BNN hold at FL80 when a large black ‘quad copter’ drone with a large, bulbous, round camera underneath passed 50ft below the nose of the aircraft.

 

Reported Separation: 50ft V/0m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

In the Board’s opinion the description of the object was sufficient to indicate that it was 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

2022034

21 Mar 22

1213

Learjet 75

(Civ Comm)

Drone

5120N 00004E

3NM NE Biggin Hill

1500ft

London FIR

(G)

The Learjet pilot reports that whilst flying an ILS Approach to RW21 at Biggin Hill they spotted a drone which appeared to be hovering. They were at 3DME IBGH and approximately 1500ft QNH. The drone looked to be approximately 100ft away, off to the right of their aircraft’s path. It was blue and white in colour. At first they thought it was a bird, however when they focused they could clearly see that it was in fact a drone, it was spotted out of the right hand windshield in the 3'o'clock, low position. The drone appeared to be hovering and did not appear to change direction or manoeuvre for the duration that it was spotted. Upon landing, they advised Biggin Hill ATC.

 

Reported Separation: 100ft V/50m H

Reported Risk of Collision: Low

 

The Biggin Hill controller reports that at 1213Z, the Learjet pilot reported sighting a drone on a 3NM final, on the right-hand-side at 1500ft.

 

A Biggin Hill investigation confirmed that although subsequent aircraft were informed about the drone sighting, no other pilots reported seeing it. Biggin Hill did not receive any drone requests or notification of any drone flights on that day.

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, 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

2022037

5 Mar 22

1210

PA28

(Civ FW)

Drone

5630N 00308W

Piperdam village

2200ft

Scottish FIR

(G)

The PA28 pilot reports that they were taking 3 passengers on a flight to the north of Dundee. On tracking to the north after take-off, just to the north of Piperdam village, they and their passengers spotted a drone off to their left. The drone was at the same level and was a clearly distinguishable, black drone with bright green lights. It seemed to have rotor guards (circular covers around the blades). All 4 of them saw the drone and it was clear to make out. No evading action was required as, by the time it was spotted, it was on their port side appearing to track south, although they were tracking north so it may actually have been stationary.

 

Reported Separation: 0ft V/100m H

Reported Risk of Collision: Low

 

The Dundee controller reports that, at 1215, [the PA28 pilot] reported encountering a UAS at 2200ft half a mile north of Piperdam (approximately 5NM NW of the aerodrome). Miss distance estimated by the pilot was 100m. The UAS was described as big in size with two propellers and black in colour with flashing green lights.

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

2022040

28 Mar 22

0722

B737

(CAT)

Drone

5344N 00146W

10NM SE POL

6500ft

Leeds

Bradford CTA

(D)

The B737 pilot reports that on climb out from RW14 at Leeds Bradford Airport they were cleared by Scottish to route direct to KARNO and climb to FL230 with no speed restriction. They actioned the clearance, on breaking out of cloud between FL60-FL70 The FO announced, 'Did you see that?'. They had observed a black drone with 2 red LED lights on it at what they estimated to be 100m away passing down the left-side of the aircraft. They saw it clearly enough to see it manoeuvre initially towards the aircraft then away and down from it. No impact was felt (and no damage observed on the walk round after landing). The Captain reported it to Scottish ATC and the flight continued without further incident. The Captain noted that although it seemed unlikely to encounter a drone at 6500ft the FO was convinced that was what they saw, together with the drone’s avoiding action.

 

Reported Separation: 0ft V/ 100m H

Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

 

The NATS investigation found that upon receipt of the report from the pilot, the controller stated that they informed Leeds ATC and ensured that subsequent departures were vectored clear of the area. The controller also stated that they asked the pilot of another aircraft which was routeing between Doncaster and Newcastle, above and to the east of the drone sighting, if they could see the drone, but the pilot reported that they could not.

Analysis of the radar by Safety Investigations 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 sufficient to indicate that it could have been a drone.

 

Applicable Contributory Factors: 1, 2, 3, 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. May reports are now available
  2. Airprox Digest 2021 - Winter Edition

View all latest news