Airprox 2024294 – What Actually Happened?

On the night of 22 November 2024 at 21:51 UTC, a National Police Air Service (NPAS) EC135 helicopter operating near RAF Lakenheath reported multiple “drones” manoeuvring around it. In reality, the objects were USAF F15 fighters engaged in authorised night training in Class G airspace (surface–FL150), coordinated by Lakenheath Approach (“Overlord”).

Summary of Key Facts:

• Closest Point of Approach (CPA): 1 NM horizontal / 1900 ft vertical separation (recorded).
• ATC Services:
  • EC135 – Basic Service (no traffic information guaranteed).
  • F-15s – Traffic Service (received information about the EC135).
• Misidentification Factors:
  • EC135’s TCAS did not display the F-15s.
  • F-15 lighting did not resemble standard civil aircraft lighting.
  • The crew believed the lights were drones due to their apparent behaviour and lack of TCAS confirmation.

The UK Airprox Board (UKAB) concluded that there was no risk of collision (Risk Category E) and attributed the report to misidentification and situational awareness breakdown rather than unsafe flying.

Why This Matters to Drone Operators

1. Misidentification Risk

Even experienced police aircrew using EO/IR cameras mistook military jets for drones. This shows how easily drone operators can be blamed for aerial events they weren’t involved in.

2. Electronic Conspicuity Limitations

The EC135’s TCAS did not detect the F-15s despite them squawking Modes A and C. This highlights the ongoing limitations of EC systems in complex or mixed-use airspace, particularly at night.

3. ATC Service Levels – Know the Difference

Under a Basic Service, ATC is not required to provide traffic information. Drone operators should consider requesting a Traffic Service or Deconfliction Service for BVLOS, urban, or sensitive operations.

Public Perception: A Persistent Challenge

• “Drone blame” is the default: Unidentified lights in the sky are often assumed to be drones, fuelling public concern and regulatory overreaction.
• Poor understanding of airspace rules: The public often assumes ATC sees and controls everything — which is untrue in Class G.
• Coordination gaps: The police helicopter tasking was not pre-notified to the USAF. This shows the need for better operational coordination.

Risk Assessment for UK Drone Operations

Potential Scenarios and Risk Levels:

• Misidentification by other aircraft:
  • Likelihood: Medium
  • Severity: Low to Medium
  • Risk Level: Moderate overall, but High reputationally
• No traffic info under Basic Service:
  • Likelihood: Medium
  • Severity: Medium
  • Risk Level: Moderate
• Public/media backlash from perceived near-miss:
  • Likelihood: High
  • Severity: High
  • Risk Level: High (especially for commercial operators)

Key Mitigations for Drone Operators:

• Use dual EC systems (ADS-B OUT and ground-based detect-and-avoid).
• Maintain a telemetry and flight log archive for every operation.
• Pre-notify military ATC when operating near MOD airspace.
• File CANPs, NOTAMs, or Temporary Danger Areas when applicable.
• Train pilots to request an upgrade to Traffic Service where required.

Legal and Regulatory Observations

• SERA.3205 and ANO Article 239 set the standard for proximity liability. Keep compliance well-documented.
• Expect growing pressure for mandatory electronic conspicuity, with incidents like this cited in policy.
• If blamed in media or police statements without evidence, drone operators may have grounds for defamation or economic loss claims. Get legal advice promptly.

Final Thoughts

This wasn’t a drone incident — but it could have been perceived as one.

The lesson? Control the narrative by controlling the data.
Record everything. Secure it. Share it when necessary. With the right evidence, drone operators can protect themselves from false blame and help improve UK airspace safety.

About the Author

Richard Ryan is a UK barrister and aviation lawyer specialising in drone regulation, UAS integration, and counter-drone law. A Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, he advises police forces, government bodies, and commercial operators on airspace compliance and emerging UTM frameworks. He is also completing a PhD on airspace integration and unmanned traffic management at Cranfield University.

The post Airprox 2024294 – What Actually Happened at RAF Lakenheath? appeared first on Blakistons.

Drones, Security, and the Law: Understanding the UK’s Counter-Drone Framework

By Richard Ryan, Drone & Counter Drone Lawyer

Drones have transformed industries, from agriculture to filmmaking, offering immense benefits. However, their misuse presents significant risks, including privacy violations, safety hazards, and national security threats. The UK’s legal framework, particularly the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006, plays a critical role in managing these challenges, especially concerning the use of jamming devices to counter rogue drones.

Recent incidents, such as drone sightings near US airbases in Suffolk and Norfolk, underscore the importance of understanding these laws and their practical applications. Let’s delve into the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006, licensing requirements, and how this legislation shapes counter-drone strategies.
________________________________________
The Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006: A Legal Cornerstone

The Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 regulates the use of wireless equipment in the UK, including jamming devices designed to neutralise drones by disrupting their communication signals. It ensures the responsible use of the electromagnetic spectrum to prevent harmful interference with critical communications, including emergency services and air traffic control.
General Prohibition on Jamming Without a Licence

Section 8(1) of the Act states:
It is unlawful—
(a) to establish or use a wireless telegraphy station, or
(b) to install or use wireless telegraphy apparatus,
except under and in accordance with a licence (a “wireless telegraphy licence”) granted under this section by Ofcom.
This provision creates a blanket prohibition on jamming devices unless explicitly authorised by Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator.

Why Is Jamming Restricted?
The restrictions exist to:
1. Minimise Interference: Prevent disruptions to essential networks, including emergency services, air traffic control, and legitimate drone operators.
2. Ensure Safety: Avoid unintended consequences, such as causing drones to crash, endangering lives or property.
3. Protect Spectrum Integrity: Maintain efficient use of the electromagnetic spectrum, preventing technical issues caused by unauthorised interference.
________________________________________
Licensing and Exemptions: The Path to Legal Use

Licensing Requirements
To use jamming technology legally, a licence from Ofcom is mandatory. Licences are typically granted only to:
• Law Enforcement Agencies: For public safety operations.
• The Military: For national defence and counter-terrorism efforts.
• High-Risk Sectors: Airports, energy plants, or critical infrastructure sites under strict regulatory oversight.

No Blanket Exemptions
Section 8(3) of the Act allows Ofcom to exempt certain wireless apparatus from licensing. However, Section 8(5) explicitly excludes jamming devices from exemption due to their high potential for interference. Exempt devices must not:
• Endanger safety of life.
• Cause undue interference with wireless telegraphy.
• Adversely affect spectrum efficiency.
Since jammers inherently disrupt wireless signals, they do not meet these criteria.
________________________________________
Proportionality and Transparency in Licensing

Even when granted, licences for jamming devices must comply with principles outlined in Section 8(3B), ensuring:
• Objective Justification: Based on the specific risks posed by rogue drones.
• Proportionality: Countermeasures must align with the threat level.
• Transparency: Clear communication of licence terms to ensure non-discriminatory enforcement.
For instance, a jamming licence for operations near airports must focus solely on mitigating rogue drones without disrupting legitimate communications or nearby authorised drone operations.
________________________________________
Practical Implications for Drone Jamming

Private Individuals
As a private individual, you cannot legally use jamming devices, even if a drone invades your privacy or trespasses on your property. Instead:
• Report the Incident: Contact the police or the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
• Avoid Unauthorised Action: Deploying a jammer is a criminal offence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006.

Organisations in High-Risk Sectors
If you represent a high-risk organisation, such as an airport or energy facility, you may apply for a jamming licence. This requires:
• Demonstrating Necessity: Proving that detection systems alone are insufficient.
• Ensuring Compliance: Implementing safeguards to prevent collateral interference and safety risks.

Alternatives to Jamming
If a licence is not feasible, alternatives include:
• Detection Systems: Radar, RF sensors, and other tools to identify and track drones.
• Physical Mitigation: Devices like nets or capture drones that neutralise rogue drones without disrupting their signals.
________________________________________
Recent Developments: Drones Over US Airbases

The recent deployment of British troops to US airbases in Suffolk and Norfolk highlights the real-world implications of counter-drone law. Drones have been sighted near RAF Lakenheath, RAF Mildenhall, and RAF Feltwell, sparking concerns over a potential “sinister” plot, with Russian involvement not ruled out.
The RAF has offered advanced counter-drone systems, including the “Ninja” and “Orcus,” which can jam and control rogue drones, forcing them to return to their origin or reroute safely. These incidents underscore the necessity of authorised and regulated counter-drone measures to address evolving threats.
________________________________________
Key Takeaways from the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006

1. Licensing is Essential: Section 8(1) prohibits the use of jamming devices without a licence from Ofcom.
2. No Exemptions for Jammers: Jamming devices inherently interfere with wireless signals and do not qualify for licensing exemptions.
3. Proportionality Matters: Licences are granted only for justified, targeted, and proportionate use.
4. Alternatives Exist: Detection systems and physical mitigation tools are viable options for those without licences.
________________________________________
Conclusion: Ensuring Compliance in Counter-Drone Operations

The Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 ensures a balanced approach to counter-drone operations, prioritising safety, efficiency, and lawful use of the electromagnetic spectrum. Unauthorised jamming is not only illegal but can lead to significant penalties, including fines and imprisonment.

As a counter-drone lawyer, I assist clients in navigating this complex regulatory landscape, from applying for Ofcom licences to ensuring compliance with drone and counter-drone laws. For tailored advice on counter-drone measures or legal representation. Together, we can help secure the skies while safeguarding your rights and responsibilities.

The post Drones, Security, and the Law: Understanding the UK’s Counter-Drone Framework appeared first on Blakistons.