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
21 1 8 10 0 2
Assessed Airprox reports

Airprox

Aircraft 1 (Type)

Aircraft 2 (Type)

Airspace (Class)

ICAO

Risk

2021095

Hawk (HQ Air Ops)

R44 (Civ Helo)

London FIR (G)

C

2021129

DA42 (Civ Comm)

Duo Discus (Civ Gld)

London FIR (G)

B

2021130

RPAS FX2 (Civ Comm)

R44 (Civ Helo)

London FIR (G)

C

2021131

PA28 (Civ FW)

Decathlon (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2021133

ASK21 (Civ Gld)

PA28 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2021136

SZD-51 Junior (Civ Gld)

PA28 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2021137

Paraglider (Civ Hang)

S76 (Civ Comm)

London FIR (G)

C

2021139

ASK21 (Civ Gld)

Prefect (HQ Air Trg)

London FIR (G)

C

2021141

DHC6 (Civ Comm)

PA28 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2021142

DA42 (Civ Comm)

C208 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2021143

EMB550 (CAT)

K8 (Civ Gld)

London FIR (G)

C

2021144

Hawk T1 (HQ Air Ops)

PA28 (Civ FW)

Scottish FIR (G)

E

2021145

DA40 (Civ FW)

C150 (Civ FW)

Lee-on-Solent ATZ (G)

B

2021146

R22 (Civ Helo)

Bell 206 (Civ Comm)

Gloucester ATZ (G)

A

2021147

C152 (Civ FW)

PA28 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2021148

Piper Cub (Civ FW)

Prefect (HQ Air Trg)

Duxford ATZ (G)

C

2021150

E190 (CAT)

PA28 (Civ FW)

London/City CTR (D)

E

2021152

PA18 (Civ FW)

R44 (Civ Comm)

White W’tham ATZ (G)

B

2021153

C152 (Civ FW)

PA28 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2021157

A109 (Civ Helo)

C182 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2021161

P68 (Civ Comm)

PA28 (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
6 0 1 5 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

2021232

05 Nov 21

0956

F15

(For Mil)

Balloon

5350N 00052E

30NM ENE Spurn Point

FL210

EG D323D

(G)

The F15 pilot reports that they saw a large balloon bloom in the HUD at 21,000ft. They aggressively banked to the left to avoid. They then made a call on the radio to avoid [the location of the balloon].

 

Reported Separation: 0ft V/50ft H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

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

 

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

2021238

29 Nov 21

1202

Jetstream 41

(CAT)

Drone

5155N 00129W

2NM SW of Enstone

FL160

Daventry CTA

(A)

The Jetstream 41 pilot reports being in the cruise at FL160, routing towards WAL VOR. They were roughly 20NM west of DTY VOR when suddenly the First Officer (pilot flying) became alarmed at something they had seen. They grabbed the controls ready to take avoiding action but there was no time to react. They stated that a drone just passed underneath the aircraft, no lower than 500ft below. This drone was either hovering or travelling in the opposite direction. The captain (pilot not flying) reported this to London Air Traffic Control and stated what had happened. The drone was a quadcopter type, red on top with a flashing green light.

 

Reported Separation: 100ft V/0m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

 

The NATS Safety Investigation report states that [the Jetstream 41 pilot] reported observing a red drone with lights approximately 500ft below passing nose to tail. [The Jetstream 41] was cruising at FL160 routing direct to WAL, approximately 1.8NM SE of NANUM. No radar contacts were visible.

In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude placed doubt on whether or not the Jetstream 41 pilot had seen a drone. However, the description provided was deemed 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

2021240

16 Sep 21 1014

A109

(Civ Comm)

Drone

5136N 00007W

1.5NM N Alexandra Palace, London

1700ft

London FIR

(G)

 

The A109 pilot reports operating VFR at 1700ft when a large drone passed overhead by 200ft in the opposite direction. They descended the aircraft and reported it to Heathrow Specials. On landing they spoke with the Met Police.

 

Reported Separation: 200ft V/0m H

 

The LL SVFR controller reports that the A109 was routing via Alexandra Place to the London Eye, then H4. At approximately 1014, when about 1.5NM north of Alexandra Place mast, southbound at 1700ft, the pilot reported a drone encounter. The pilot reported it was 200-300ft above and was a fairly sizable drone with a red flashing light. The incident occurred in Class G airspace. Nothing was observed on radar.

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

2021243

5 Dec 21

0726

A319

(CAT)

Drone

5109N 00013W

Gatwick

1500ft

Gatwick CTR

(D)

The A319 pilot reports on departure, just after thrust reduction, when the Captain and FO noticed a suspected hovering drone which passed below the aircraft by about 100ft. It appeared to be stationary and made of two components. The FO reported they were visual with lights on the suspected drone. After it passed below, the crew informed ATC and they started the mitigation process. The flight continued with no impact on the operation. After discussion, the crew concluded that although only visual with the object for a short period of time, a balloon would have been moving with the airflow, which was at that point a 40kt crosswind, and it was unlikely a balloon would have been released that early in the morning from the fields below. ATC later informed them that no further drone sightings were reported.

 

Reported Separation: 100ft V/0m H

Reported Risk of Collision: NK

In the Board’s opinion the reported description of the object was 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

2021247

15 Dec 21

2145

B737

(Civ Comm)

Unk Obj

5149N 00008E

3NM SW Stansted

3500ft

Stansted CTR

(D)

The B737 pilot reports passing 3500ft on the UTAVA departure from RW22. The first officer suspected a drone had passed the aircraft at the same level to the right of the aircraft at a distance between 200-300m. The suspected drone was a white lighted object that passed quickly down the right side of the aircraft. ATC were alerted to the suspected sighting and details were passed via the radio.

En-route to [destination] company ops were contacted via the radio to organise an engineer to inspect the aircraft in case there was any damage.

No abnormal indications were observed after the sighting and no damage was found by the engineer.

The captain spoke to Stansted airport police once they arrived in [destination] and incident details were

given.

 

Reported Separation: 0ft V / 200m-300m H

Reported Risk of Collision: NR

 

The Stansted Radar controller reports that the [B737 pilot] reported a drone on their right-hand side. The drone was described as white, no other details were offered. The [B737 pilot] was departing Stansted on a UTAVA SID passing 3500ft in the proximity of Sawbridgeworth. The police at Stansted airport were informed by GS Airports.

 

The NATS Safety Investigation states that the pilot informed the SS FIN controller at 2141:36, climbing through approximately 3500ft, they observed a drone on the right-hand side of the aircraft,

with a lateral miss-distance of approximately 300ft. NODE Radar displayed the aircraft passing

altitude 3500ft at 2140:23, 4.7NM south-west of the Stansted centre fix. The controller report stated that this was in the vicinity of Sawbridgeworth.

It has been estimated that the UAS was at altitude 3500ft from the pilot report. Safety Investigations reviewed the radar at the time the pilot reported the sighting, however, no radar contacts were visible.

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

2021249

18 Dec 21

1213

A320

(CAT)

Unk Obj

5139N 00009W

ivo Cockfosters

6000ft

London TMA

(A)

The A320 pilot reports in straight and level cruise when the crew had a possible drone sighting. The object was heading in the opposite direction (southbound); there was no time to take avoiding action. It passed just above and down the right-hand side. The black object looked like a drone but there was not enough time to assess for certain.

 

Reported Separation: 100ft V/100m H

Reported Risk of Collision: Medium

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

 

[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