Airprox Actuality Examine – An open letter to the members of the UK Airprox board – sUAS Information

Pricey Members of the UK Airprox Board,

I wish to commend the UKAB on the publication of report 2024294which presents an intensive and considerate examination of the Police helicopter’s drone airprox report close to Lakenheath. This report marks an essential second in UKAB’s dealing with of drone-related airprox circumstances, for a number of key causes:

• It represents the primary time the total Board has been engaged in a case that started as a pilot-reported drone airprox.
• It marks a shift in strategy, with the pilot’s assertion being rigorously reviewed moderately than accepted with out query.
• It acknowledges, for the primary time, {that a} pilot’s visible notion will be fallible—one thing that aligns with well-established rules in human elements and psychology.
• It recognises the truth that a pilot can misidentify a distant full-sized plane as a more in-depth drone.
• It highlights how, even with entry to radar and radio contact, air site visitors controllers could not all the time interpret unfolding conditions precisely. On this case, the failure to understand that the “drones” the Police helicopter was monitoring had been really F15s raises broader questions in regards to the potential for related ‘interpretation failures’ in earlier experiences.

This case demonstrates the worth of an open-minded and investigative strategy. It means that many earlier experiences—over 800 thus far—may profit from related scrutiny. A re-examination of those circumstances, or not less than a evaluate of the assumptions underpinning them, may assist to make sure that the airprox database stays as correct and credible as doable.

Had report 2024294 adopted the same old streamlined path for drone airprox experiences, the presence of the F15s could by no means have been recognized, and the result would seemingly have been one other unsubstantiated attribution to drones.

I hope that, going ahead, UKAB will apply this extra thorough methodology to all airprox experiences involving drones. Treating these occasions as probably being misidentified standard plane, moderately than defaulting to the idea of a drone, would replicate a wholesome and constructive evolution in airspace security evaluation.

Lastly, I might encourage the Board to revisit report 2024293 in gentle of the teachings from 2024294. That report raises related questions on visible misperception and interpretation.

Particularly, the presence of an A320 crossing in entrance of the ATR may present a extra believable clarification for the reported high-speed lights than an untraceable jet fighter formation. It might be worthwhile to think about whether or not investigative framing or preliminary assumptions could have influenced how the incident was interpreted.

Thanks once more in your efforts in pursuing a extra evidence-based strategy. Reviews like 2024294 set a precious precedent for future airprox investigations.

Yours sincerely

Mark Dale
Airprox Actuality Examine
https://www.airproxrealitycheck.org

Associated