Assessment Summary Sheet
Contributory factor assessment for each assessed Airprox can be downloaded.
| Total | Risk A | Risk B | Risk C | Risk D | Risk E |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 5 |
| Airprox | Aircraft 1 (Type) | Aircraft 2 (Type) | Airspace (Class) | ICAO Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019231 | DHC6 (Civ Comm) | PA28 (Civ FW) | Lands End ATZ (G) | E |
| 2019233 | Tutor (HQ Air Trg) | PA28 (Civ FW) | Woodvale ATZ (G) | C |
| 2019238 | Typhoon (A) (HQ Air Ops) | Typhoon (B) (HQ Air Ops) | London FIR (G) | C |
| Recommendation: The MAA ensures that military operators fully understand the definition and application of the term ‘MARSA’. | ||||
| 2019241 | Tutor (HQ Air Trg) | Sigma 10 paraglider (Civ Gld) | London FIR (G) | C |
| 2019242 | Chinook (HQ JHC) | Glider (Unknown) | London FIR (G) | C |
| 2019243 | Juno (HQ Air Trg) | PA28 (Civ FW) | London FIR (G) | C |
| 2019245 | P68 (Civ Comm) | C172 (Civ FW) | London FIR (G) | C |
| 2019246 | P68 (Civ Comm) | C172 (Civ FW) | Cambridge ATZ (G) | C |
| 2019248 | P68 (Civ Comm) | PA28 (Civ FW) | London FIR (G) | C |
| 2019252 | BE20 (Civ Comm) | AA5 (Civ FW) | London FIR (G) | E |
| 2019253 | C42 (Civ FW) | AW109 (Civ Helo) | London FIR (G) | A |
| 2019254 | PA25/PW-6 (Civ FW) | Light aircraft (Unknown) | London FIR (G) | B |
| 2019255 | C152 (Civ FW) | RV6 (Civ FW) | London FIR (G) | C |
| 2019256 | DR400 (Civ FW) | Enstrom 280 (Civ Helo) | Enstone ATZ (G) | A |
| 2019257 | DA42 (Civ FW) | C414 (Civ FW) | London FIR (G) | E |
| Recommendation: Gloucester to consider applying for an SSR transponder conspicuity code. | ||||
| 2019263 | Ventus glider (Civ Gld) | Rockwell Commander 112 (Civ FW) | London FIR (G) | C |
| 2019264 | Cabri G2 (Civ Helo) | Decathlon (Civ FW) | Goodwood ATZ (G) | E |
| Recommendation: Goodwood to review fixed-wing and rotary-wing circuit deconfliction. | ||||
| 2019265 | EC175 (Civ Comm) | A109 (Civ Helo) | Aberdeen CTR (D) | E |
| 2019269 | Merlin (RN) | Slingsby Firefly (Civ FW) | London FIR (G) | C |
| 2019273 | AW139 (Civ Helo) | Paramotor (Civ Para) | London FIR (G) | B |
| 2019278 | Juno (A) (HQ Air Trg) | Juno (B) (HQ Air Trg) | 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.
| Total | Risk A | Risk B | Risk C | Risk D | Risk E |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020004 |
12 Jan 20 1214 |
B787 (CAT) |
Drone |
5121N 00013W 5nm W BIG VOR 6000ft |
London TMA (A) |
The B787 pilot reports that while being vectored downwind left-hand for LHR and in level flight, the Captain’s attention was suddenly drawn to a black object below and to the left of the aircraft, a few hundred metres ahead. The object was very visible because it was against the white cloud below it. No avoiding action was required because it was obvious the object would pass below and down the left-hand side of the aircraft. Initially the captain thought it might be a balloon but as the object passed abeam the aircraft it was obvious it was a large black drone. Reported Separation: 200ft V/ 100m H Reported Risk of Collision: None A NATS Safety Investigation found that at 1214z the B787 pilot reported the large drone had passed down the left-hand side about 100ft below. The controller acknowledged the report and advised that nothing was seen on radar in his vicinity. Information relating to the drone was passed to subsequent arrivals. Analysis of the radar by safety investigators confirmed that there were no associated primary or secondary contacts visible on the radar at the 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 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 |
| 2020007 |
19 Jan 20 1404 |
B737 (CAT) |
Drone |
5232N 00144W 5nm north of BHX 3500ft |
Birmingham CTR (D) |
The B737 pilot reports that, during the first turn of the ADMEX 1M SID from BHX, at approximately 3000ft QNH, the First Officer (PF) sighted and alerted the Captain to the presence of a drone at the same level, moving from nose to tail on the port side of the aircraft. The drone was black and possibly silver, with 4 rotors, and was approximately the size of a wheelie-bin lid. The drone remained unsighted by the Captain. The incident was immediately reported to ATC and the flight continued uneventfully with no indications of damage to the aircraft. Reported Separation: 0ft V/50-100m 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: 1,2,3,4,6 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 |
[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.