Assessment Summary Sheet
Contributory factor assessment for each assessed Airprox can be downloaded.
| Total | Risk A | Risk B | Risk C | Risk D | Risk E |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | 1 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 2 |
|
Airprox |
Aircraft 1 (Type) |
Aircraft 2 (Type) |
Airspace (Class) |
ICAO Risk |
|
PA28 (A) (Civ FW) |
PA28 (B) (Civ FW) |
Wolverhampton ATZ (G) |
E |
|
|
Typhoon (2) (HQ Air (Ops)) |
Typhoon (1) (HQ Air (Ops)) |
Coningsby MATZ (G) |
C |
|
|
Recommendation: RAF Coningsby considers a further review of all their departure profiles, including a review of the balance between RT brevity and pilot experience. |
||||
|
C152 (Civ FW) |
PA28 (Civ FW) |
Coventry ATZ (G) |
C |
|
|
AW189 (Coast Guard) |
C42 (Civ FW) |
Scottish FIR (G) |
C |
|
|
C172 (Civ FW) |
PA28 (Civ FW) |
London FIR (G) |
A |
|
|
C172 (Civ FW) |
C182 (Civ FW) |
London FIR (G) |
B |
|
|
PA28 (Civ FW) |
C172 (Civ FW) |
London FIR (G) |
C |
|
|
PA28 (Civ FW) |
Vixxen (Civ FW) |
Wolverhampton ATZ (G) |
C |
|
|
A400M (HQ Air (Ops)) |
Puma UAS (Mil UAS) |
Scottish FIR (G) |
C |
|
|
Recommendation: The MAA reviews the MRP GEN 1600 series: uncrewed air systems (UAS) to highlight to their regulated community the existence of the 2000 series (FLY) and its applicability to UAS operations within the UKMLFS (specifically RA 2330). Concurrently, the MAA reviews the content of the UKMLFHB to ensure that military UAS operations within the UKMLFS are considered. |
||||
|
Typhoon (HQ Air (Ops)) |
Light aircraft (Unknown) |
Scottish FIR (G) |
E |
|
|
Mavic 3M (Civ UAS) |
Hawk HQ Air (Trg) |
Scottish FIR (G) |
B |
|
|
C152 (Civ FW) |
C172 (A) (Civ FW) |
Cambridge ATZ (G) |
C |
|
|
PA28(A) (Civ FW) |
PA28(B) (Civ FW) |
London FIR (G) |
C |
|
|
A340 (Civ Comm) |
Falcon 20 (Civ Comm) |
Bournemouth CTR (D) |
C |
|
|
Juno (HQ Air (Trg)) |
PA28 (Civ FW) |
London FIR (G) |
C |
|
|
Explorer (Civ FW) |
C172 (Civ FW) |
London FIR (G) |
B |
|
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 |
|
2026008 |
29 Jan 26 1541 |
Hawk T2 HQ Air (Trg) |
Unk Obj |
5344N 00304W 2NM SW Blackpool Airport 4780ft |
London FIR (G) |
The Hawk pilot reports carrying out a practice diversion to Warton. On climb out from Warton, under a Traffic Service, an unidentified object was observed to have passed very close to the left-hand side of the aircraft canopy. Just prior to the incident the nearest traffic reported was 12NM north from where the Airprox occurred. There was no datalink or TCAS information that correlated with the Airprox object. The time line of events was as follows: 1541:26 Front seat pilot (handling the aircraft) called “Tally” with the object. 1541:27 Front seat pilot took avoiding action and rolled right, away from the object. 1541:28 Object passed down the left-hand side of the aircraft. 1541:29 Both crew asked “What was that?” 1541:32 Front seat pilot informed Warton radar of “a close pass to what appeared to be a drone or a balloon” 1541:48 Warton radar acknowledged and stated that “nothing seen on radar” and that they “were not in contact with anything in the vicinity” The object appeared to be about 0.25m in length. The object was of no discernible detail but appeared to be flat and solid.
Reported Separation: ~5ft V/~5m H Reported Risk of Collision: High
The Warton controller reports they received a call from a Hawk [pilot] at approximately 5000ft, departing to the NW of Warton. The pilot reported some kind of object or drone while climbing into a block between 5000ft and 10000ft on Holyhead RPS 984hPa. The pilot avoided the object and continued with the sortie.
[UKAB Note: There were no UAS NOTAMs for the area, time and date of the Airprox] |
In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or description of the object, including post-flight analysis of the HUD recording, were such that they were unable to determine the nature of the unknown object.
Applicable Contributory Factors: 4, 6
Risk: The Board considered that 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.