RAF Valley Hawk jets in near miss with mystery 'paramotor' on approach to Anglesey base
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info
Two Hawk jets were involved in a near miss with a mystery paramotor on the "approach lane" for RAF Valley. The paramotor - which is a powered para-glider - had not been detected on radar and hadn't notified Air Traffic Control (ATC) of its intentions.
This saw the two Hawks come within 200ft of the motorised glider around five miles south of RAF Valley. It was visually identified by crew at a late stage in the incident on November 27 last year.
After the near miss all traffic within the visual circuit was instructed to land due to the unknown routeing of the paramotor. An investigation was launched and an Airprox (air proximity) report has now been released.
The report stated: "The pair of Hawks came within an estimated 200ft of the para[motor].
"Although the para[motor] pilot was operating within the law, it would be fair to say that they were operating with poor awareness of the hazard of flying in the approach lane of a busy fast-jet base. Sign up for the North Wales Live newsletter sent twice daily to your inbox
"Likewise, the Hawk formation had no awareness of the presence of the para[motor] until it was too late to do anything about it."
Despite extensive efforts it proved impossible to track down the pilot of the motorised glider, which had been hard to identify on the day due to having a dark coloured canopy against a dark-coloured ground.
The report added: "It was clear from the footage that the 'look-down' was not particularly good that day, which likely contributed to the difficulties in seeing the para[motor] canopy until it had passed underneath the aircraft, by which point it was too late to do anything about it."
In terms of recommendations, it added: "Hawk pilots will be reminded at the next flight safety meeting of the potential hazards of para[motor]s on approach to the airfield, and the importance of an effective lookout. Valley AST will be asked to liaise with ATC to determine the suitability of positioning a monitor showing glidernet.org (and perhaps ADS-B) live information to increase ATC's awareness of free flying in the vicinity of RAF Valley."
The flight safety officer of the local paragliding club has subsequently also issued a communication to the club to warn against flying in the approach lane of RAF Valley.
The report added: "It is likely that the para[motor] pilot is not a member of the club and/or a visitor to the area."
HQ Air Command said: "A good spot by the rear occupant of the lead aircraft; however, there wasn't time for the Hawk formation to conduct any type of avoiding action. The event was well managed by ATC in coordination with the Duty Pilot to mitigate any further risks presented by the paramotor.
"Continued engagement with local airspace users via the Regional Airspace User Working Group is vital; however, it will be difficult to capture all airspace users, especially those who don't appear to be members of the BHPA (British Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association)."
The BHPA said: "The BHPA is most disappointed to hear about this Airprox which had a considerable adverse effect on RAF Valley's flying operations. We have made extensive attempts at trying to identify this paramotor pilot and, during our conversations with the local BHPA paragliding and paramotoring clubs on Anglesey, we weren't able to ascertain their identity and, therefore, we are almost certain that this pilot is not a BHPA member.
"Consequently, we are unable to add much in the way of a BHPA comment to the incident itself other than relief that a more serious outcome was averted."
They added that they were frustrated that the Civil Aviation Authority and Department for Transport had not made proper training and third party insurance mandatory for paramotor and powered hang glider pilots.
They said: "Paramotoring still remains the only form of aviation in the UK where an unlicensed and uninsured pilot can fly and share the sky with other airspace users having had no formal training on the Rules of the Air, AirLaw, Meteorology, Airspace Classifications, etc., or had any formal flying instruction."
The incident was classed as a risk category B (on scale of A - the most serious - to D. This means the incident involved a significant reduction in safety margins, but a collision was not assessed as likely. Join the North Wales Live WhatsApp community group where you can get the latest stories delivered straight to your phone
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wales Online
5 hours ago
- Wales Online
RAF Hawk jets in near miss with mystery paramotor in busy air corridor
RAF Hawk jets in near miss with mystery paramotor in busy air corridor The paramotor had not been detected on radar and hadn't notified Air Traffic Control (ATC) of its intentions, with the two RAF Hawk jets coming within 200ft of the motorised glider Two Hawk T2s above their base at RAF Valley (Image: MoD ) Two Hawk jets experienced a close call with an unidentified paramotor while on the "approach lane" for RAF Valley. The paramotor, a powered paraglider, had not appeared on radar and failed to communicate its presence to Air Traffic Control (ATC). The incident, which occurred approximately five miles south of RAF Valley, resulted in the Hawks coming within 200ft of the motorised glider. It all transpired on November 27, 2024 and it was only at a late stage that the crew visually spotted the paramotor. Following the near miss, all aircrafts in the visual circuit were ordered to land due to the uncertainty surrounding the paramotor's flight path. An inquiry into the event has been conducted, culminating in the publication of an Airprox (air proximity) report. Read the biggest stories in Wales first by signing up to our daily newsletter here . The report disclosed: "The pair of Hawks came within an estimated 200ft of the para[motor]." It went on to say: "Although the para[motor] pilot was operating within the law, it would be fair to say that they were operating with poor awareness of the hazard of flying in the approach lane of a busy fast-jet base", reports North Wales Live. Additionally, the report noted: "Likewise, the Hawk formation had no awareness of the presence of the para[motor] until it was too late to do anything about it." Article continues below Despite thorough attempts, the pilot of the motorised glider remains untraceable, having been difficult to spot on the day due to a dark-coloured canopy blending with the dark ground below. The report highlighted: "It was clear from the footage that the 'look-down' was not particularly good that day, which likely contributed to the difficulties in seeing the para[motor] canopy until it had passed underneath the aircraft, by which point it was too late to do anything about it." In its recommendations, the report suggested: "Hawk pilots will be reminded at the next flight safety meeting of the potential hazards of para[motor]s on approach to the airfield, and the importance of an effective lookout. Valley AST will be asked to liaise with ATC to determine the suitability of positioning a monitor showing (and perhaps ADS-B) live information to increase ATC's awareness of free flying in the vicinity of RAF Valley." The map shows the near miss over RAF Valley in Anglesey Moreover, the flight safety officer of the local paragliding club issued a directive to club members cautioning them to avoid flying near RAF Valley's approach path. The report also concluded: "It is likely that the para[motor] pilot is not a member of the club and/or a visitor to the area." HQ Air Command commented: "A good spot by the rear occupant of the lead aircraft; however, there wasn't time for the Hawk formation to conduct any type of avoiding action. The event was well managed by ATC in coordination with the Duty Pilot to mitigate any further risks presented by the paramotor. "Continued engagement with local airspace users via the Regional Airspace User Working Group is vital; however, it will be difficult to capture all airspace users, especially those who don't appear to be members of the BHPA (British Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association)." The BHPA expressed their concern: "The BHPA is most disappointed to hear about this Airprox which had a considerable adverse effect on RAF Valley's flying operations. We have made extensive attempts at trying to identify this paramotor pilot and, during our conversations with the local BHPA paragliding and paramotoring clubs on Anglesey, we weren't able to ascertain their identity and, therefore, we are almost certain that this pilot is not a BHPA member." They continued, expressing relief that the incident did not escalate: "Consequently, we are unable to add much in the way of a BHPA comment to the incident itself other than relief that a more serious outcome was averted." The association also voiced their frustration over the lack of regulatory measures for paramotor and powered hang glider pilots by the Civil Aviation Authority and Department for Transport. They criticised the current state of aviation regulation: "Paramotoring still remains the only form of aviation in the UK where an unlicensed and uninsured pilot can fly and share the sky with other airspace users having had no formal training on the Rules of the Air, AirLaw, Meteorology, Airspace Classifications, etc., or had any formal flying instruction." Article continues below The incident was categorised as a risk category B (on a scale from A - the most serious - to D). This indicates that the incident resulted in a significant reduction in safety margins, though a collision was not deemed likely.
Wales Online
14 hours ago
- Wales Online
RAF Valley Hawk jets in near miss with mystery 'paramotor' on approach to Anglesey base
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info Two Hawk jets were involved in a near miss with a mystery paramotor on the "approach lane" for RAF Valley. The paramotor - which is a powered para-glider - had not been detected on radar and hadn't notified Air Traffic Control (ATC) of its intentions. This saw the two Hawks come within 200ft of the motorised glider around five miles south of RAF Valley. It was visually identified by crew at a late stage in the incident on November 27 last year. After the near miss all traffic within the visual circuit was instructed to land due to the unknown routeing of the paramotor. An investigation was launched and an Airprox (air proximity) report has now been released. The report stated: "The pair of Hawks came within an estimated 200ft of the para[motor]. "Although the para[motor] pilot was operating within the law, it would be fair to say that they were operating with poor awareness of the hazard of flying in the approach lane of a busy fast-jet base. Sign up for the North Wales Live newsletter sent twice daily to your inbox "Likewise, the Hawk formation had no awareness of the presence of the para[motor] until it was too late to do anything about it." Despite extensive efforts it proved impossible to track down the pilot of the motorised glider, which had been hard to identify on the day due to having a dark coloured canopy against a dark-coloured ground. The report added: "It was clear from the footage that the 'look-down' was not particularly good that day, which likely contributed to the difficulties in seeing the para[motor] canopy until it had passed underneath the aircraft, by which point it was too late to do anything about it." In terms of recommendations, it added: "Hawk pilots will be reminded at the next flight safety meeting of the potential hazards of para[motor]s on approach to the airfield, and the importance of an effective lookout. Valley AST will be asked to liaise with ATC to determine the suitability of positioning a monitor showing (and perhaps ADS-B) live information to increase ATC's awareness of free flying in the vicinity of RAF Valley." The flight safety officer of the local paragliding club has subsequently also issued a communication to the club to warn against flying in the approach lane of RAF Valley. The report added: "It is likely that the para[motor] pilot is not a member of the club and/or a visitor to the area." HQ Air Command said: "A good spot by the rear occupant of the lead aircraft; however, there wasn't time for the Hawk formation to conduct any type of avoiding action. The event was well managed by ATC in coordination with the Duty Pilot to mitigate any further risks presented by the paramotor. "Continued engagement with local airspace users via the Regional Airspace User Working Group is vital; however, it will be difficult to capture all airspace users, especially those who don't appear to be members of the BHPA (British Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association)." The BHPA said: "The BHPA is most disappointed to hear about this Airprox which had a considerable adverse effect on RAF Valley's flying operations. We have made extensive attempts at trying to identify this paramotor pilot and, during our conversations with the local BHPA paragliding and paramotoring clubs on Anglesey, we weren't able to ascertain their identity and, therefore, we are almost certain that this pilot is not a BHPA member. "Consequently, we are unable to add much in the way of a BHPA comment to the incident itself other than relief that a more serious outcome was averted." They added that they were frustrated that the Civil Aviation Authority and Department for Transport had not made proper training and third party insurance mandatory for paramotor and powered hang glider pilots. They said: "Paramotoring still remains the only form of aviation in the UK where an unlicensed and uninsured pilot can fly and share the sky with other airspace users having had no formal training on the Rules of the Air, AirLaw, Meteorology, Airspace Classifications, etc., or had any formal flying instruction." The incident was classed as a risk category B (on scale of A - the most serious - to D. This means the incident involved a significant reduction in safety margins, but a collision was not assessed as likely. Join the North Wales Live WhatsApp community group where you can get the latest stories delivered straight to your phone
Scottish Sun
16 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
The B&Q buy that stopped nosy neighbours peeking into my garden – took minutes to fit & £1.5k cheaper than a new fence
All recommendations within this article are informed by expert editorial opinion. If you click on a link in this story we may earn affiliate revenue. Plus, everything you need to know about installing a new fence Garden Privacy Hack The B&Q buy that stopped nosy neighbours peeking into my garden – took minutes to fit & £1.5k cheaper than a new fence Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) A SMALL rotten picket fence, that is suffocating under the weight of unruly ivy and bindweed sits between myself and my neighbours. We both have 80ft gardens, but the evening sun lands on my side of their fence. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 4 The picket fence offered no privacy for either garden Credit: RM 4 The bamboo screen came rolled up (left) and was easy to install with screws and mushroom caps (right) Credit: RM And of course, they want to enjoy the sun too, so they sit as close as possible to the fence, meaning we have nothing but a few pieces of wood separating us. It's as uncomfortable and awkward as you can imagine. But privacy isn't an issue solely related to topping up our Vitamin D; I can't potter around my garden, watering my plants, without feeling my neighbour's eyes burning into the back of my head, or enjoy the morning sun with a cup of coffee in my pyjamas. In an ideal world, we'd put up a new fence. But according to Land Registry, the fence on the right side of our garden is our neighbours' responsibility - or more specifically, the landlord who owns the house and rents it out. And they have no intention to spend any money on erecting a new one. A basic 6ft high wooden fence could cost anywhere from £1,600 to £3,000 for one side of my garden and across the back - that's if the cheapest fence panels are chosen. That's a lot of money to spend on a fence that isn't yours... So a privacy fence would have to do in the meantime, until our budget allows for a brand new fence. With the permission of the landlord, we were allowed to attach a bamboo screen to our side of the neighbours fence to offer instant privacy. And B&Q's Bamboo Split Slat Fencing Screening Rolls for Garden Outdoor Privacy did the job. The privacy screen is 4m long, but comes in a variety of heights, making it suitable for all gardens. Trying out Lidl's new weeding tools As for the price, they start at £24.99. 4mx1m - £24.99 4mx1.2m - £29.99 4mx1.5m - £36.99 4mx1.8m - was £46.99, currently on offer for £42.99 4mx2m - was £49.99, currently on offer for £44.99 Standing at two metres, or 6"6 tall and four metres long, we needed two screens to cover the exposed area of the fence. So in total, it cost under £100 - a whopping £1,500 cheaper than getting a new fence. The online product description for the screen reads: "This robust and eco-friendly bamboo slat fencing screening roll will make a perfect practical addition to your garden. "It is popular as a way to improve existing fencing and frame flower beds. "The bamboo is strong enough to increase the height of existing fences. It can be used on its own or attached to an existing fence.. These bamboo slat fencing screening rolls can be attached to existing garden fences, stone walls, chain link wire fencing, arbours and many other areas the garden which requires screening or shade. "It can be easily attached to wooden garden fences by the use of galvanised garden staples securing top and bottom of the bamboo slat fencing screening." 4 The privacy screen stood at two metres tall (legally allowed without permission) Credit: RM 4 The finished result! Now I can potter around my garden freely without my neighbours looking Credit: RM Using long screws and mushroom caps, we attached the screen to the existing picket fence every foot or so along, and it stood proudly. It's a two person job; one to screw and one to roll it out and hold it tight. But after 10 minutes, both screens were up! As for how it screen isn't entirely opaque; there are tiny gaps between the bamboo rods that let some light through. So unless you and your neighbour have a staring competition, you can't see them. Plus, when the sun hits it, it leaves a beautiful dappled effect across the grass. I was pleasantly surprised at how good it looks. And I wasn't the only happy customer. One left a review which read: "These fences are so nice, they really brightened our garden and covered our older looking fences. My husband just screwed them into our existing fences. Hope they last throughout the winter season." Another said: "Bought this to cover an unsightly pebble dashed garage. It looks great, is really strong and will also act as a climbing frame for my plants too!" A third wrote: "We've just used this to cover a wall in bad condition. Very pleased with the look of it." What are your rights over a fence row? IT'S very important to know your rights if you are embroiled in a fence row with a neighbour. How do I know which side I own? A boundary feature can be a fence, wall, hedge, ditch, piece of wire, or sometimes even just the edge of a driveway. The only way to know for certain who owns what side and to avoid any neighbour disputes, is to refer to the title plan or Land Registry. In this, the T mark is used to indicate who the boundary belongs to and therefore who is responsible for its upkeep, say pros at Jacksons Fencing. Larger developments tend to have some indication provided by the builder, but there are no hard and fast rules People often think they are responsible for the left (or right) hand boundary wherever they live, but there isn't any legal basis for this. You can check with HM Land Registry to see which boundary feature you are responsible for. Often households can't get hold of the paperwork but experts say they shouldn't panic. Homeowners can guess who owns the fence by checking where the rails are. Pros say: "The fence is typically facing away from their property so that their neighbour gets the 'good' side. 'This is the most secure way of facing fencing so there are no rails for anyone to use to climb into your garden. 'This is then repeated with the neighbour on the other side to ensure that each home has both a 'good' and 'bad' fence side.' Walls and fences are often built on the land of the boundary's owner with the edge of the wall marking the limit. While professionals agree a glimpse at the fence can give you a hint, it's not foolproof - so you can't be certain. Fines and punishment It is recommended to always check legal documents before making changes to avoid hefty fines. There is no law that the neighbour has to get the good side of the fence, so it's completely up to whoever owns the fence. Fencing pros have suggested: 'It may be worth selecting a double-sided panel with no 'bad' side as both sides look the same and rails are concealed within the fence panel.' If one boundary backs onto a road or footpath you can install the panels with the rails on the inside But if it's installed on the outside, it can provide an 'easy ladder for burglars to enter your garden'. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and the Property Litigation Association have created a mediation service to help neighbours resolve disputes over their property boundaries without resorting to court action. RICS also provides a list of surveyors who could assist in boundary disputes. If a dispute continues, it is ultimately a court that makes decisions, but they do not like such disputes being put before them. Changing a boundary If you want to change an existing boundary, such as replacing an old fence with a new one, we always recommend discussing with your neighbour first and making sure it is all agreed. The registered titles can help you to reach an agreement, but only if this information has been added. In terms of decorations on a fence legal advisers recommended asking around over who actually first installed it. But they also urged caution before getting to work on amending the fence without getting more certainty yourself - since there is a danger of actually being prosecuted for criminal damage. How high can a garden fence be? The height of the fence is measured from your ground level, this can have an impact when, due to slopes in the ground, your garden may be at a higher level than your neighbours'. A garden fence can be as high as 100m but you need to get planning permission if it's over than 2m. However, there are some complications to this. If you are thinking about front garden fences, restrictions state that fences alongside a driveway can be a maximum of 1m or 3ft. You would need to get planning permission for putting a trellis on a fence of 2m. But, if any plant that you grow on that trellis exceeds 2m, you do not need to obtain a permit for the growing plant. One other review read: "Sturdy bamboo screening, not the cheapest but worth it compared to others I have seen. Very easy to install. And lovely when it's up. Going to order some more. Really quick delivery. Great buy." As for whether it holds up in extreme weather, two days later, the weather turned, and winds whipped around the garden, but because of the small gaps between the bamboo, it was more resistant and allowed the wind to pass through. But the real test will be the great British winter... With a year warranty, it gives us enough time to save up for a brand new fence.
