Consultation Hub

We asked for views on a proposal to amend Article 71 to remove the restrictions on its use from legislation. These restrictions are the current requirement for urgent operational need, or urgent and unforeseeable circumstances, and a set of mandatory conditions. This change is proposed to enable the CAA to support new and developing technologies, regulate for growth and maintain ongoing high standards of safety.

We invited stakeholders to consider the proposed change and wording for UK Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 (the Basic Regulation).

The consultation ran from 21 August 2025 to 30 September 2025.

We received 51 responses to the consultation from both individuals and organisations. The majority were in favour of the proposed changes to the legislation.

82% of responders agreed with the proposal to amend Article 71 to remove restrictions on the issue of exemptions. Nine responders disagreed with the proposal to amend Article 71.

General comments

Supporters of the proposal generally welcome the increased flexibility, arguing that the current limitations – restricting exemptions to urgent operational need or unforeseeable circumstances – are outdated and hinder progress. They believe that the proposed changes will allow the UK to remain competitive in aviation innovation, particularly in emerging sectors such as unmanned aircraft systems and advanced air mobility. Several respondents emphasized that the current framework impedes the trial and deployment of new technologies, and that aligning Article 71 with the broader powers under the Air Navigation Order 2016 would simplify the regulatory landscape.

However, many supporters also stressed the need for clear safeguards. These include exemptions being safe, time-limited, transparent (in terms of publication and the decision-making process), and fair. Publishing a single policy framework and accompanying guidance that outlines how exemptions will be granted, challenged, monitored, varied and revoked had support. Some submissions questioned whether stakeholders could be involved in this process. The importance of ensuring the CAA has sufficient expertise and resources to assess exemption requests responsibly was brought up in several submissions. One supporter also questioned how the proposal would affect International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) compliance, and whether exemptions made for one organisation would be available for all others in a ‘blanket’ manner.

Those who opposed the proposal raised concerns about governance, transparency, safety and the CAA’s expertise and capacity. It was suggested that the current exemptions regime being limited to unforeseen or unplanned circumstances means it is limited in scope, easier to oversee and has fewer risks of unintended consequences. They expressed concern about the CAA’s and operators’ expertise to assess, manage and oversee risk and compliance associated with exemptions to safety regulations. Some respondents argued that removing the urgency requirement could lead to exemptions being used routinely, undermining the principle that they should be exceptional and only used sparingly. Where general compliance with the existing ruleset is not considered desirable, the appropriate avenue should be rulemaking with Department for Transport, including stakeholder involvement and scrutiny.

Opponents also warned that the proposal risks weakening safety standards and bypassing stakeholder involvement, particularly workers who are directly affected by regulatory changes. They also questioned the rationale for the amendment, noting a lack of evidence that the current safeguards have impeded necessary exemptions. Further, they questioned the need for this proposal if the proposed policy to accompany this change is materially similar to the contents of the current Article 71. They further argued that widening the exemptions regime is not necessary for innovation, research and development as there are existing regulatory pathways for allowing this type of activity and more could be developed.

Specific comments

We asked respondents for respondents view of the proposal in respect of safety, efficiency, finance, security, the environment and equality. We have summarised comments regarding each below.

Safety

Positive Impact:

• Many respondents believe that exemptions, if properly assessed, can enhance safety by allowing the CAA to respond to emerging technologies and operational needs more effectively.
• Flexibility: Exemptions could enable safer operations by alleviating the impacts of outdated or overly prescriptive regulations.
• Case-by-case assessment: Supporters trust the CAA to maintain safety standards through rigorous evaluation, though this must be resourced and have necessary expertise.
• Certain activities can be allowed that improve safety without meeting all ‘red-tape’.

Negative impact:

• Some respondents were concerned that removing urgency safeguards could lead to unsafe practices, particularly in situations where applicants are under operational or financial pressure.
• Exemptions may become routine rather than exceptional, undermining the integrity of the safety framework. Without transparency it will be difficult to know which rules apply to which organisations.
• Unsafe situations may develop over time if exemptions are not time limited.
• Safety regulation breaches could simply be ratified by the CAA with widened exemption powers.

Efficiency

Positive Impact:

• Removing urgency requirements allows for more strategic and timely decisions.
• Streamlined processes: Exemptions can reduce bureaucratic delays, especially in testing and deploying new technologies while lengthy rulemaking takes place.
• Operational continuity: Flexibility helps avoid disruptions due to rigid compliance requirements.

Negative impact:

• Increased volume: A surge in exemption applications could overwhelm the CAA’s resources.
• More exemptions and inconsistent application of them may disrupt operational consistency in areas such as air traffic management.

Finance

Positive Impact:

• Cost reduction: Streamlining regulatory processes can lower operational costs for businesses.
• Faster time-to-market for innovations may attract investment and boost competitiveness.

Negative impact:

• Unfair competition: Exemptions could give some operators cost advantages, distorting the market.
• The CAA may face increased administrative burdens due to increased application volume.

Security

Positive Impact:

• Neutral: Most supporters believe exemptions will not compromise security if properly managed.

Negative impact:

• Exemptions may create loopholes exploitable by hostile actors.

Environment

Positive Impact:

• Accelerated sustainability: Exemptions may facilitate the adoption of greener technologies, such as electric aircraft and efficient airspace design.
• Reduced emissions: Flexibility in operations can lead to fuel savings and noise reduction.

Negative impact:

• Exemptions might delay adoption of environmentally friendly practices or allow operations with higher emissions.

Equality

Positive Impact:

• No negative impact: Most supporters see no reason the proposal would disadvantage protected groups.

Negative impact:

• Two-tier system: Discretionary exemptions may favour well-connected or resourced entities.
• Access barriers: Online-only application processes could disadvantage older or less tech-savvy individuals.

Following the consultation on the proposed amendment to Article 71 of UK Regulation (EU) 2018/1139, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has carefully considered all feedback received. We are grateful to the 51 individuals and organisations who responded, and we acknowledge the range of views expressed. In line with Government principles, the CAA consults on matters that include changes to legislation and policy. This was a valuable opportunity to seek views and participation from interested parties. We appreciate the feedback on the proposed amendments and have considered the responses and comments.

We recognise that the existing requirement for exemptions to be issued only in cases of urgent operational need or urgent and unforeseeable circumstances has limited the CAA’s ability to respond flexibly to emerging technologies and evolving operational contexts. We also recognise that the current UK regulatory framework can be highly prescriptive, and that legislative change is not always swift. The CAA therefore considers it appropriate that it should, as the expert independent aviation safety regulator, have a degree of discretion in respect of the application of the framework in in certain cases in order to continue to support innovation, regulate for growth, and maintain or improve safety standards in a rapidly changing aviation landscape. We will therefore be proceeding with the proposed amendment to Article 71 to remove from the law the limitations on its use.

However, we also acknowledge the concerns raised by respondents, particularly around safety, governance, transparency, and the potential for exemptions to be used routinely rather than exceptionally.

The CAA will address the concerns raised by respondents about the use of the amended Article 71 powers through the development of a comprehensive policy framework to accompany the legislative change. This policy will be subject to further stakeholder engagement and consultation. The draft policy will be finalised before this change to the regulation is laid in Parliament.

The development of the policy will include consideration of whether and, if so, how to: 

• Establish clear criteria for the use of exemptions which are transparent and available to both the CAA and industry and which ensure that high standards of safety are maintained. This will include consideration of the existing requirements currently set out in the law;
• Ensure that exemptions are appropriately time-bounded;
• Ensure that the exemption process is clear and transparent;
• Ensure fairness and consistency in the application of the policy;
• Appropriately engage stakeholders within the process; 
• Ensure that the application of the policy aligns with the UK’s ICAO obligations.

The CAA is committed to maintaining high standards of safety while exercising its functions as the independent aviation regulation, and will ensure that it has the necessary expertise and resources to assess exemption applications rigorously and consistently.

In summary, while we are proceeding with the proposed amendment to Article 71, we are doing so with a clear commitment to responsible implementation. The accompanying policy will reflect the perspectives shared during the consultation and will ensure that flexibility does not come at the expense of safety, fairness, or public trust.

We asked for views on a proposal to remove restrictions on the application and management of operational multi-pilot limitations (OML) on Class 1 medical certificates.

We invited stakeholders to consider the relevant implementing rules in Annex IV (Part-MED) of the Aircrew Regulation (UK Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011).

The consultation ran from 2 July 2025 to 31 July 2025.

We received 338 responses to the consultation from both individuals and organisations. The majority were in favour of the proposed changes to the legislation.

97% of responders agreed with the proposal to permit the issue of Class 1 medical certificates with an OML endorsement to initial applicants with certain well-controlled long-term medical conditions.

Several comments related to the dichotomy that currently exists between a commercial licence holder and a new applicant with the same medical condition. Responders felt that initial applicants should be treated in the same way as qualified pilots with medical conditions that are acceptable for multi-pilot operations. They also supported the removal of unnecessary barriers to individuals wanting to start a career as a commercial pilot.

Only ten responders disagreed with the addition of an OML to an initial Class 1 medical certificate. There were three comments. One response suggested that the medical standard should be higher for initial applicants than existing pilots. However, medical impairment and incapacitation events are rare, providing evidence that the current standards for a fit assessment with an OML are appropriate. In addition, the presence of another pilot (or pilots) in multi-pilot operations is a significant mitigation for risks associated with pilot incapacitation.

Two other responders felt that an OML should only be used to extend the careers of pilots already in the profession but this forgoes the opportunity to enable more individuals to access training, which in turn will contribute to addressing the shortage of pilots.

94% of responders supported the proposal to remove the rostering restrictions for commercial licence holders with an OML on their medical certificate.

Most comments indicated that the current legislation is overly restrictive. Reasons in support of removing the constraints included:

• lifestyle rather than age as the determinant of health and fitness
• advances in the management and monitoring of medical conditions
• the presence of another pilot on the flight deck and often additional ‘heavy’ crew on board
• informed risk assessment in the case of known medical conditions
• the extremely low probability of two medical events occurring at the same time

Some responders commented on the benefits of removing the restrictions, including:

• easier rostering and workforce flexibility
• better choice and career prospects for existing pilots
• opportunities for older individuals wanting to enter the profession
• wider deployment of experienced instructors and examiners who have an OML or have reached the age of 60 years
• less operational disruption

Nineteen responders opposed lifting the rostering restrictions, with only two comments. One responder was concerned about two pilots flying together, each having an OML for the same susceptibility or condition, such as hypoxia or an allergy. The other raised the potential for older pilots to have reduced performance or to be less fit.

In response to these concerns, notwithstanding the proposed amendments, the CAA would retain the authority to impose any limitation on the holder of a medical certificate to ensure flight safety. It is also the case that commercial pilots with an OML and older pilots are subject to more frequent review and examination on account of their medical condition and / or age.

In line with Government principles, the CAA consults on matters that include changes to legislation and policy. This was a valuable opportunity to seek views and participation from interested parties. We appreciate the feedback on the proposed amendments, and have considered the responses and comments.

The CAA recognises the importance of acting proportionately and minimising the legislative burden to industry. We see this as an opportunity to remove barriers and restrictions on the application and management of the OML endorsement on Class 1 medical certificates created by the current legislation, with no adverse effect on flight safety.

Most responders supported the proposal to amend the legislation in the two areas consulted upon. The revised policy will benefit both new and existing pilots, provide resource and rostering flexibility to aircraft operators, and support the safe and sustainable functioning of the aviation industry. We will therefore be proceeding with the next phase of the rulemaking task. Work has commenced with the Department for Transport to prepare the Statutory Instrument for Parliament. We anticipate that the amendments to the Aircrew Regulation (UK Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011) will be implemented in late 2026 or early 2027.

For comments on the proposal that the CAA introduces a Special Condition to be used in addressing the integration of a moveable wall into a mini-suite seat, resulting in a “PRM Suite”, in twin aisle large aeroplane interiors.

The Consultation Paper Special Condition UK.SC.D.0001 Issue 1 provides the full detail of the identified issue, and the associated Special Condition.

We received 3 responses.

The first response provided confirmation that the development of a Special Condition would not be applicable to the organisation’s designs or its products. This required no action by the CAA.

The second response proposed addition of further Interpretive Material to support understanding, and to further improve alignment with other global Regulators.

The third response proposed enhancement to the definitions within the text, and proposed wording changes aimed at making the text more specific to the crew operation of a moveable wall, and proposed to remove some text due to being unduly prescriptive.

We acknowledge the responses and thank the responders for their suggestions.

For the second response the comment is accepted and has been incorporated. Additional Interpretive Material has been included in the final SC publication.

For the third response, the comment is partly accepted. The suggestion of enhancement of definitions has been incorporated, and the text within the Identification of Issue section has been revised in the final SC publication. The proposal for wording changes and removal of some text considered prescriptive, has not been incorporated.

The CAA believes the context of the existing text to be clear and the parts subject to comment well aligned to that of other Regulators, and while the comments are relevant, the removal of the text proposed would also remove the intent of the requirement.