Assessment Summary Sheet
Contributory factor assessment for each assessed Airprox can be downloaded.
| Total | Risk A | Risk B | Risk C | Risk D | Risk E |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17 | 0 | 6 | 9 | 0 | 2 |
|
Airprox |
Aircraft 1 (Type) |
Aircraft 2 (Type) |
Airspace (Class) |
ICAO Risk |
|
C152 (Civ FW) |
PC12 (Civ Comm) |
Fairoaks ATZ (G) |
C |
|
|
PA22 (Civ FW) |
PA28 (Civ FW) |
Gloucester ATZ (G) |
B |
|
|
DA62 (Coast Guard) |
EC155 (Civ Helo) |
TDA098E (Danger Area) London FIR (G) |
E |
|
|
Recommendation: The nominated DA Authority for TDA098 to consider amending the AIC Y019/2026 to specify the pressure datum to be used to define its vertical extent. |
||||
|
C152 (Civ FW) |
Sling4 (Civ FW) |
London FIR (G) |
B |
|
|
AW169 (HEMS) |
GT450 (Civ FW) |
London FIR (G) |
C |
|
|
Trinity Pro (Civ UAS) |
Texan (HQ Air (Trg)) |
London FIR (G) |
C |
|
|
Jupiter (HQ Air (Trg)) |
C152 (Civ FW) |
Shawbury MATZ (G) |
C |
|
|
Sonaca S200 (Civ FW) |
Firefly (Civ FW) |
London FIR (G) |
B |
|
|
B737 (CAT) |
DG500 (Civ Gld) |
Scottish FIR (G) |
E |
|
|
Eurofox (Civ FW) |
C42 (Civ FW) |
London FIR (G) |
C |
|
|
R44 (Civ Helo) |
PA28 (Civ FW) |
London FIR (G) |
B |
|
|
AW139 (Civ Comm) |
C152 (Civ FW) |
London FIR (G) |
C |
|
|
AS355 (Civ Comm) |
R44 (Civ Helo) |
London FIR (G) |
C |
|
|
AW109 (Civ Comm) |
AA5 (Civ FW) |
London FIR (G) |
B |
|
|
C152 (Civ FW) |
C150 (Civ FW) |
London FIR (G) |
C |
|
|
Hurricane (Civ FW) |
ASK21 (Civ Gld) |
London FIR (G) |
C |
|
|
PA28 (Civ FW) |
C152 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 0 | 2 | 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 |
|
2026047 |
18 Apr 26 1640 |
A319 (CAT) |
Drone |
5105N 00029W ~2NM SE Dunsfold Aerodrome ~FL080 |
London TMA (A) |
The A319 pilot reports in the climb passing FL080 when both crew members saw a large ‘multi-rotor’ drone pass below and on the left. They did not have time to take avoiding action.
Reported Separation: 100ft V/<100m H Reported Risk of Collision: Medium
The Swanwick controller reports [the A319 pilot] reported seeing a drone shortly after departure. They passed the information to [the relevant supervisor] who in turn notified [the departure airfield]. They were subsequently informed that the pilot had reported the incident as an Airprox.
NATS Safety Investigation Analysis of the radar by Safety Investigations indicated that there were no associated primary or secondary contacts associated with the drone report, 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, 7
Risk: The Board considered that safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured. |
B |
|
2026057 |
5 Apr 26 0920 |
B787 (CAT) |
Drone |
5128N 00018W 5NM E Heathrow 1500ft |
London CTR (D) |
The B787 pilot reports that, [on the ILS for RW27L], at 5DME and 1500ft, a drone was seen approximately 100ft right of the aircraft at the same level. [It was a] small white, non-commercial drone with no visible markings.
Reported Separation: 0ft V/100ft H Reported Risk of Collision: NR
The Heathrow Tower controller reports that they were the RW27L Arrivals controller when, at approximately 5NM from touchdown, the [pilot of the the B787] reported seeing a drone near their wingtip.
They asked if they were sure it was a drone and not a bird, and they said that they were fairly sure it was [a drone].
They were just completing a handover, and think that more details may have been passed to the incoming controller, but they are not sure. |
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 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.