I have hesitated posting to this thread as I am not a professional pilot. The originator of the thread cross posted in our paramotor forum and, I think, was expecting a bigger response from professional pilots to this airprox report and the discussion we paramotorists have had. I was certainly expecting a bigger reaction to the recommendation the uKAB made following the report. On the basis that their remit is to establish cause and recommend measures to reduce or eliminate likelihood of recurrence that they seem to believe the re-taianing paramotorists will make a difference is extraordinary and worrying for me both as a paramotrist and as a jet passenger (and perhaps I should add a trainer of paramotrists). I would have expected the recommendation to reduce or prevent such use of class G by passenger jets until restricted airspace is established into these airports.
I know nothing about these matters beyond the usual rudimentary understanding of a GA sports pilot but it seems to me to allow Southend ATC to route a "base leg" straight through the middle of one of the only areas remaining, east of London for paramotrists to fly in, is asking for a repeat in the very near future however well trained the paramotorists become?
The UKAB report contains a number of assumptions and assertions about paramotors and their operators that are not supported by any investigation or evidence and no expert witnesses were called to give testimony. I am told "very influential people " read this forum and respectfully suggest they take an interest in the report and ask WTF is going on at UKAB?