Mid-air collisions and near misses (MAC/Airprox)

N.B: For most up-to-date information on mid-air collisions and near misses, change language selection to Finnish.

Near misses and collisions in the air (MAC/AIRPROX) 2025

In 2025, a total of 59 airborne near misses between aircraft were reported in Finland or involving Finnish aircraft abroad. The number was at the level of the 2015–2024 average (59.9) and lower than the previous year.

Incidents occurring in Finland were reported 31 times, which is clearly fewer than the ten-year average (42). The number of incidents reported from abroad (28) was higher than the average (18.3) but at the same level as in the few previous years.

Typically, MAC/AIRPROX cases involved situations where the distances between aircraft were less than the separation minima or the distance was otherwise smaller than normal, but actual collisions were avoided.

However, in May, an accident occurred in Finland where two Estonian helicopters collided with each other at the Eura aerodrome, and all 5 persons in the helicopters perished. More on the case below in the general and recreational aviation section.

The previous MAC/AIRPROX type situation leading to an accident in Finland occurred in 2011, when two gliders collided during a gliding competition. As a result, the pilot of one aircraft perished. A collision between gliders also occurred in 2006, but that time the impact was survived without fatalities.

Overall, however, the number of serious incidents remained clearly lower than in previous years.

Drones were involved in 5 near misses in Finland. The number was smaller than the average. Abroad, on the other hand, a Finnish aircraft was involved in 16 near misses with a drone, and this number was clearly higher than the average. In one incident abroad a Finnish airliner was approaching Tallinn airport, when an object, which was suspected to be a drone, hit the aircraft. Confirmation could not be obtained even after ground searches. Despite the impact, the approach and landing were completed safely.

Regarding drones, the situation in Finland overall has developed in a good direction in recent years, whereas abroad they have increasingly caused near misses.

Last year, a serious collision-type accident also occurred abroad in the US, when an American airliner approaching Washington Ronald Reagan Airport collided with a U.S. Army helicopter flying below it. A total of 67 people perished.
 

Commercial air transport

Finnish commercial air transport was involved in 43 near misses in 2025. The number was clearly above the ten-year average.

16 cases occurred in Finland and 27 abroad. These figures were also above the average.

In Finland, the location for 75% of the cases was Helsinki Airport, as has been typical in previous years as well. Mostly, the background was a separation infringement with another manned aircraft, but the infringements were not very significant. Near misses between drones and commercial air transport aircraft in Finland have been quite rare in recent years, and last year 2 such cases were reported, which is slightly fewer than in previous years. Both occurred at Helsinki Airport.

Abroad, the most common location for near misses was again London, where there have been plenty of situations caused especially by drones in recent years.

Most often, near misses in commercial air transport involved a separation infringement. The numbers of cases were above the average, but no significant growing trend is visible. In many situations occurring abroad, a resolution advisory given by the TCAS system was involved, which reduces the risk of a possible collision. More on the TCAS topic below.
 

General and recreational aviation

Finnish general and recreational aviation was reported to have been involved in 5 near misses in 2025. The number was considerably below the 2015–2024 average (18.9).

The cases occurred in both controlled airspace and at uncontrolled aerodromes, and they did not cause more serious consequences. In previous years, near misses have caused an average of 3 serious incidents. The total numbers were thus clearly lower than in previous years, so the situation would seem to have developed clearly in a good direction in recent years, even if some cases may have gone unreported.

1 of the cases occurred in Estonia to a Finnish aircraft and the rest in Finland. The numbers were small, but Pori had the most occurrences. Also in previous years, a fairly large proportion of general and recreational aviation cases have occurred in Pori. Pori has busy general aviation training activity.

Although the situation developed well for Finns, a fatal collision accident involving foreign general and recreational aviation occurred in Finland between two Estonian helicopters in May at the Eura aerodrome. All 5 persons in the helicopters perished in the accident. The Safety Investigation Authority initiated investigation L2025-01 regarding the case. An interim report on the case was published in July, but a clear reason for the collision was not yet visible.

The previous time a fatal collision accident occurred in general and recreational aviation in Finland was in 2011. At that time, two gliders collided in mid-air and the pilot of one glider perished. A collision accident between gliders also occurred in 2006, but it was survived without fatalities.

Even viewed internationally, collision accidents between helicopters are quite rare. Individual collisions between helicopters occur annually.

Safety bulletins have also identified the most typical causes of near misses and considered ways to prevent them. One of the key safety factors is maintaining situational awareness. According to the safety bulletin:

"The building blocks of situational awareness include, among other things, trust that others also operate according to common rules, monitoring the aerodrome radio frequency and speaking on it, and active observation of the airspace."

Unmanned aviation

In 2025, 6 near misses between a drone and a manned aircraft were reported in Finland. The number was smaller than the 2015–2024 average (8.4) and at the level of the few previous years. The cases did not cause more serious incidents.

Last year, clearly intentional large-scale drone activity in the vicinity of airports was reported at several European airports. The activities caused significant impacts on airport operations. In Finland, however, the situation remained at a reasonably good level last year. Still, in a couple of Finnish cases too, a drone had clearly been flown too close to the airport, meaning the activity was intentional.

The number of airspace infringements caused by drone activity was lower than in previous years in the early part of the year, but for the whole year, the numbers nevertheless rose slightly above the average (15.3). Compared to the previous year, the figure decreased slightly. The majority were again in the airspace of Helsinki Airport. You can read more about the situation of airspace infringements in their own section.

Abroad, drones again caused several (16) near misses where a Finnish aircraft was the other party. The numbers were above the average. As in previous years, London was a "hot spot" in these cases. Over half of the cases abroad were reported from London.

Air traffic control

In 2025, there were 21 radar separation minimum infringements between aircraft caused by Finnish air traffic control (excluding wake turbulence separation infringements or separation minimum infringements between aircraft and airspaces). The number was roughly at same level as the 2015–2024 average, and previous year. The separation infringements were reasonably minor.

Most of the separation infringements occurred at Helsinki Airport, as is typical in previous years as well. The next highest numbers of separation infringements occurred in Jyväskylä and Rovaniemi. The numbers were approximately at the level of the average, although a small increase compared to previous years was visible in the figures for Helsinki.

Typically, the separation infringement occurred during approach. However, the infringements were mostly minor, and no significant dangerous situations resulted from them.

Types of incidents contributing to near misses

are described in more detail in their own section In addition, other events to be monitored that may contribute to near misses include, for example, level busts, lateral deviations from the route, transponder failures, and incorrect responses to TCAS resolution adviseries.

Below is a highlight of a few monitored event categories.

In 2025, the number of level busts occurring in Finland was slightly higher than the 2015–2024 average (44.1) but approximately at the level of the few previous years.

In previous years, military aviation has been an area where busts have typically occurred, but last year most occurred in commercial air transport. The main contributing factors were various misunderstandings regarding cleared levels, and they most often occurred during the cruise phase or approach. The cases did not cause more serious consequences.

In military aviation, the number of cases was at the level of the average. In almost all cases, a contributing factor was pilot error in complying with the clearance.

Lateral deviations from route were reported in Finland and for Finnish aircraft clearly more than the 2015–2024 average. The number of situations occurring both in Finland and elsewhere in the world was increasing. The majority have occurred in commercial air transport. Behind the cases are misunderstandings of clearance, incorrect waypoint or heading settings in the cockpit, as well as incorrect compliance with approach routes.

The largest category consisted of cases where the aircraft encountered GPS interference during the flight, and it affected the heading in some way either immediately or later during the approach. However, the cases did not cause more significant safety effects, as typically the flight crew detected the deviation and intervened quickly.

GPS interference typically affects the aircraft's navigation capability, in which case it must use backup navigation systems or request navigational assistance from air traffic control. Traficom has published more detailed information on the subject on the Satellite navigation service interferences in Finland website.

The number of radio communication faults in 2025 decreased compared to the two previous years but was still above the average. Especially cases reported in general and recreational aviation decreased clearly. Typical situations were again interference noises on radio frequencies, problems reaching air traffic control, or incorrectly selected radio frequency.

In the spring of 2025, the use of the general frequency 119.700 MHz ended in Finland. It was used for a long time as a so-called general frequency for air navigation service units. Based on international policies, Fintraffic ANS stated that there is no longer a need to keep it in general use, and it will be gradually removed from the Aeronautical Information Publication regarding ATS unit data and from aeronautical charts. In the future, only the so-called main frequencies of each unit and the emergency frequency 121.500 MHz will be in use and monitored at airports, which clarifies the situation.

26 reports were received regarding resolution advisories given by the TCAS system. This number was slightly above the long-term average. The majority again occurred abroad. In Finland, the number was at the level of the average. Typically, the resolution advisory came in a situation where the aircraft's high rate of climb or descent activated the other aircraft's TCAS system, but the required separation minimum was maintained.

One case of incorrect reaction to a TCAS system resolution advisory was reported. In the situation in question, the aircraft was performing an approach when the TCAS system gave a resolution advisory, the probable cause of which was a helicopter flying in the vicinity of the airport. Air traffic control had also warned the pilots about the helicopter, and they had visual contact with it, on the basis of which they decided not to follow the advisory and continued to a successful landing. However, according to instructions concerning TCAS system advisories, they should be followed in all situations.