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

Expensive Members of the UK Airprox Board,

I wish 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 necessary 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 fastidiously reviewed quite 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 ideas 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 truly F15s raises broader questions in regards to the potential for related ‘interpretation failures’ in earlier studies.

This case demonstrates the worth of an open-minded and investigative strategy. It means that many earlier studies—over 800 so far—would possibly profit from related scrutiny. A re-examination of those circumstances, or at the least a overview of the assumptions underpinning them, may 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 studies, the presence of the F15s could by no means have been recognized, and the end 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 studies involving drones. Treating these occasions as doubtlessly being misidentified typical plane, quite than defaulting to the idea of a drone, would mirror a wholesome and constructive evolution in airspace security evaluation.

Lastly, I might encourage the Board to revisit report 2024293 in mild 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 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 to your efforts in pursuing a extra evidence-based strategy. Studies like 2024294 set a invaluable precedent for future airprox investigations.

Yours sincerely

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

Associated