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

Expensive Members of the UK Airprox Board,

I want to commend the UKAB on the publication of report 2024294, which presents a radical 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 instances, 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 could 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 better drone.
• It highlights how, even with entry to radar and radio contact, air visitors controllers could not at all times 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 concerning the potential for comparable ‘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—would possibly profit from comparable scrutiny. A re-examination of those instances, or at the very least a evaluation of the assumptions underpinning them, might assist to make sure that the airprox database stays as correct and credible as attainable.

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 possible 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 belief of a drone, would mirror a wholesome and constructive evolution in airspace security evaluation.

Lastly, I’d encourage the Board to revisit report 2024293 in mild of the teachings from 2024294. That report raises comparable questions on visible misperception and interpretation.

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

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

Yours sincerely

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

Associated