Airprox Reality Check – An open letter to the members of the UK Airprox board – sUAS News

Dear Members of the UK Airprox Board,

I would like to commend the UKAB on the publication of report 2024294, which presents a thorough and thoughtful examination of the Police helicopter’s drone airprox report near Lakenheath. This report marks an important moment in UKAB’s handling of drone-related airprox cases, for several key reasons:

• It represents the first time the full Board has been engaged in a case that began as a pilot-reported drone airprox.
• It marks a shift in approach, with the pilot’s statement being carefully reviewed rather than accepted without question.
• It acknowledges, for the first time, that a pilot’s visual perception can be fallible—something that aligns with well-established principles in human factors and psychology.
• It recognises the fact that a pilot can misidentify a distant full-sized aircraft as a closer drone.
• It highlights how, even with access to radar and radio contact, air traffic controllers may not always interpret unfolding situations accurately. In this case, the failure to realise that the “drones” the Police helicopter was tracking were actually F15s raises broader questions about the potential for similar ‘interpretation failures’ in previous reports.

This case demonstrates the value of an open-minded and investigative approach. It suggests that many earlier reports—over 800 to date—might benefit from similar scrutiny. A re-examination of these cases, or at least a review of the assumptions underpinning them, could help to ensure that the airprox database remains as accurate and credible as possible.

Had report 2024294 followed the usual streamlined path for drone airprox reports, the presence of the F15s may never have been identified, and the outcome would likely have been another unsubstantiated attribution to drones.

I hope that, going forward, UKAB will apply this more thorough methodology to all airprox reports involving drones. Treating these events as potentially being misidentified conventional aircraft, rather than defaulting to the assumption of a drone, would reflect a healthy and constructive evolution in airspace safety analysis.

Finally, I would encourage the Board to revisit report 2024293 in light of the lessons from 2024294. That report raises similar questions about visual misperception and interpretation.

Specifically, the presence of an A320 crossing in front of the ATR might provide a more plausible explanation for the reported high-speed lights than an untraceable jet fighter formation. It would be worthwhile to consider whether investigative framing or initial assumptions may have influenced how the incident was interpreted.

Thank you again for your efforts in pursuing a more evidence-based approach. Reports like 2024294 set a valuable precedent for future airprox investigations.

Yours sincerely

Mark Dale
Airprox Reality Check
https://www.airproxrealitycheck.org

Related