Report by the UK Airprox Board, ‘Analysis of Airprox in UK Airspace’ (January 2003 to June 2003) produced jointly for The Chairman, Civil Aviation Authority and the Chief of the Air Staff, Royal Air Force FOREWORD If you fly aeroplanes, or control them, then this book is for you. It is the tenth in the series but its purpose remains unchanged – to promote air safety awareness and understanding, by sharing widely the lessons to be learned from unexpected encounters. For the process to work effectively, this document must be made freely available to aviators and controllers in their work place and not locked away in a manager’s office. This volume covers the first six months of 2003 and contains findings on all of the 85 Airprox filed in that period, within UK airspace. A breakdown of Risk results is shown below, set against like results since 2000, to permit comparisons to be made. (January to June) 2000 2001 2002 2003 Risk Category A 14 16 7 6 (Collision risk) Risk Category B 20 23 27 29 (Safety not assured) Risk Category C 61 57 57 49 (No collision risk) Risk Category D 0 5 1 1 (Insufficient information available) Totals: 95 101 92 85 Inspection reveals that when six-month periods are compared, last year’s count of 85 incidents undercut like totals recorded in each of the previous three years. Similarly, there was also a reduction in the number of Risk A returns, which once again did not involve any CAT aircraft. Turning to risk-bearing results (Risk A + Risk B) these remained consistent apart from the rise to 39 cases seen in 2001. All of these figures, however, need to be taken for what they are at this stage - a ‘snapshot’ only of the wider picture. Once full end-of-year figures for 2003 are to hand, more meaningful comparisons can be made with what has gone before and pertinent longer-term trends can then be identified. For more information on Airprox statistics, including the outcome of related Recommendations, visit the UKAB web site at www.ukab.org.uk. Meanwhile, there are many valuable lessons to be learned by reading about the unhappy situations that others have found themselves in, starting on page 18. Their honesty in reporting what happened to them should be used by colleagues to help avoid similar predicaments in future. Gordon McRobbie Gordon McRobbie Director, UKAB 2 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Page UKAB Composition 4 UKAB’s Role 4 Status of UKAB Reports 4 Risk Categories 4 STATISTICS SECTION The UKAB Data Set 5 Half Year Comparisons 6 Who Met with Whom During 2001 7 Airspace in which conflicts took place 7 Commercial Air Transport Section CAT Risk Results 8 CAT Causal Factors 8 General Aviation Section GA Risk Results 9 GA Causal Factors 9 Military Aviation Section Military Risk Results 10 Military Causal Factors 10 UKAB RECOMMENDATIONS 11 GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS 15 AIRPROX REPORTS 18 INDEX 272 3 INTRODUCTION UKAB COMPOSITION The UKAB acts as an independent organisation but is sponsored jointly by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) to assess all Airprox reported within UK airspace. Eight civilian and six military members form the Board, which is Chaired by the Director UKAB; he reports directly to the Chairman CAA and Chief of the Air Staff, Royal Air Force. UKAB members are all ‘unpaid volunteers’ - pilots and air traffic controllers - who devote their expertise, experience and aviation ‘know how’ in a combined approach that covers the following disciplines: · Air Traffic Terminal Control, Area Control and Airfield Control · Commercial Air Transport flying (CAT) · General Aviation (GA) flying, both fixed wing and rotary · Military flying by the RN, Army and the RAF, plus UK-based USAF aircraft UKAB’s ROLE The UKAB has the following roles in promoting improved safety standards in the air: · Acting as the reporting point for all Airprox in UK airspace, this triggers an investigation process into each incident that is carried out by the Safety Regulation Group (SRG) of the CAA and/or Military HQs · Determining what happened and why - analysis of the main causal factors · Assessment of risk levels involved · Making recommendations where appropriate to prevent incident recurrence · Publishing and distributing full reports twice a year so that lessons can be learned STATUS OF UKAB REPORTS The sole objective of the United Kingdom Airprox Board shall be to assess reported Airprox in the interests of enhancing flight safety. It is not the purpose of the Board to apportion blame or liability. To encourage an open and honest reporting environment names of companies and individuals are not published in reports. RISK CATEGORIES Risk level assessments are made on the basis of what actually took place and not on what may or may not have happened. There are four agreed categories as follows: A Risk of collision An actual risk of collision existed B Safety not assured The safety of the aircraft was compromised C No risk of collision No risk of collision existed D Risk not determined Insufficient information was available to determine the risk involved, or inconclusive or conflicting evidence precluded such determination 4 A pictorial representation of the Airprox band is shown below: (the ‘Airprox’ band) Safety A BC Collision There was an Safety was not There was no Normal actual risk of a assured risk of a collision safety collision standards Safety of ac was compromised Airprox: a situation in which, in the opinion of a pilot or a controller, the distance between aircraft as well as their relative positions and speed have been such that the safety of the aircraft involved was, or may have been, compromised. STATISTICS THE UKAB DATA SET Unless otherwise stated, all of the Airprox statistical information presented in this report has been taken from the UKAB database and is presented at two levels for ease of reference. The first level gives a broad overview on general trends. Second level detail then follows, where more specific results are shown for each of the three airspace user groups set out below. CAT Scheduled/Non-Scheduled passenger flights in Airliners and Helicopters Cargo flights GA Executive and Company aircraft (hired for specific reward) Private and Flying Club aircraft Gliders, sport aviation and airships Aerial work Military Aircraft flown by the RN, Army and RAF plus foreign military aircraft (UK airspace) Defence Procurement Agency aircraft - formerly MOD (PE) Notes: (1) CAT flying hour totals are supplied by the Safety Regulation Group (SRG) of the CAA. They include figures from Eurocontrol on hours flown by commercial aircraft in transit through UK airspace as well as departures from and arrivals at UK destinations. (2) GA flying hours are based on aircraft with less than 5700 kg maximum take-off weight authorised; they include Microlights and Gliders, but exclude Gyroplanes and balloons. The British Gliding Association and the Registration Department of the CAA supply GA data. (3) Should figures be updated, new values are shown to promote the integrity of the information presented. (4) Military flying hours include some elements flown outside UK airspace. 5 AIRPROX NUMBERS INVOLVING CIVIL AND MILITARY AIRCRAFT HALF YEAR COMPARISONS 2002 and 2003 A total of 85 Airprox were reported between January and June 2003, which is 7 fewer than in the same period in 2002. This slight drop in numbers made little difference to the percentage split between civil and military encounters, as can be seen from Fig 1 and Fig 2. While Mil~Mil conflicts reduced by 4%, those for Civ~Civ edged up 1% and Civ~Mil by 3%. Precise details are set out in Tables 1 and 2. Civil~Military Mix: January - June 2002 Civil~Military Mix: January - June 2003 Civ~Mil Civ~Mil 35% 38% Mil~Mil Civ~Civ Mil~Mil Civ~Civ 20% 45% 16% 46% Mil~Mil Civ~Mil Civ~Civ Mil~Mil Civ~Mil Civ~Civ Figure 1 Figure 2 2002 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Totals 2003 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Totals Mil~Mil23432418 Mil~Mil21114514 Civ~Mil 2 1 7 6 10 6 32 Civ~Mil227471032 Civ~Civ 1 3 4 7 11 16 42 Civ~Civ363761439 Totals 5 7 15 16 23 26 92 Totals 7 9 11 12 17 29 85 Table 1 Table 2 The pie chart at Fig 3 shows how the 2002 (Jan - Jun): Aircraft Mix various user groups interacted during the GA~Mil GA~GA first six months of 2002. Fig 4 shows the 24% same period in 2003, for comparison. 23% Although CAT~CAT conflicts reduced by 6% in 2003, CAT~GA meetings went up CAT~GA 7% by 9%, while CAT~Military Airprox rose Mil~Mil also by 4%. The end result of these 21% CAT~CAT changes was a relative increase in CAT CAT~Mil CAT~Other 13% involvement by 5%, bearing in mind the 10% 2% ‘pie’ was smaller - down from 92 to 85. Figure 3 2003 (Jan - Jun): Aircraft Mix The overall rise of 9% for GA pilot involvement can be attributed primarily to the GA~GA GA~Mil 22% 25% conflicts with CAT aircraft, already mentioned above. Fewer Mil~Mil encounters in 2003 were CAT~GA offset by minor changes elsewhere, mainly 16% Mil~Mil involving CAT aircraft. The final outcome, 16% however, was an overall involvement level CAT~CAT CAT~Mil 7% 14% of 55%, which is unchanged on the position for 2002. Figure 4 6 WHO MET WITH WHOM? Jan to Jun 2003 CAT Helicopter CAT Passenger Reward) & GA (Hire GA Ac Company GA Glider GA Helicopter GA PrivateClub or GA Training Untraced GA Ac Military Fixed Wing Military Glider Weather Balloon Unknown Totals CAT Cargo 11 CAT Helicopter 11 CAT Passenger 63 52 8 125 GA (Hire & Reward) 11 2 4 GA Company Ac 1 1 GA Glider 11 13 GA Helicopter 22 2 6 GA Private or Club 12 15 9 GA Training 11 1222 9 Military Fixed Wing 31 121 10 1 19 Military Glider 21 3 Military helicopter 1214 Totals 1106 1 1 6166 1331 1 285 Figure 5 Fig 5 provides more insight into involvement in the 85 conflicts reported.