Consultation Hub

Welcome to Citizen Space. This site will help you find and participate in consultations that interest you.

Recently updated consultations are displayed below. Alternatively, search for consultations by keyword, postcode, interest etc.

We Asked, You Said, We Did

Here are some of the issues we have consulted on and their outcomes. See all outcomes

We Asked

For comments from industry on the following main proposals:

A general price increase of 1.5% across all Schemes of Charges in 2017/18;

Proposals of specific charges to cover our costs in four areas where we are undertaking new activities, being:

  • Airspace Change Process (ACP)
  • Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
  • Aviation Security
  • Medical

Proposals to review the charging structure under the General Aviation Scheme of Charges concerning regulatory activities relating to the unmanned aircraft systems and small unmanned aircraft.

You Said

This document includes the comments received and the outcome:  CAA Response Document

We Did

We are grateful for the submissions received and after CAA Board discussion, we have implemented all proposals made subject to one amendment relating to the Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Scheme of Charges. Please see the CAA Response Document for details.

We Asked

Following a comprehensive review of CAP 699 - Framework for the competence of rescue and fire fighting service personnel - we carried out a short consultation in October and November 2016 to seek views from industry on a draft of CAP699.

We had previously consulted with Industry following changes to RFFS training brought about by the introduction of EU Aerodrome Regulation (Commission Regulation (EU) No. 139/2014) communicated in IN-2014/133. This showed a strong desire by Industry to retain CAP 699 as guidance material for Aerodrome RFFS personnel, but to bring it up to date.

We invited review of the draft CAP 699 and welcomed your comments on:

  • Chapter 1 – Establishing a training and proficiency check programme, and comment as required
  • Chapter 2 – Managing a training and proficiency check programme and comment as required
  • Chapter 3 – Do the core and role related units detailed in the Firefighter framework adequately cover the requirements of CAP 168 & EASA?

 

You Said

This document includes the comments received and the outcome: www.caa.co.uk/CAP699R

 

We Did

Edition 3 of CAP 699, published in January 2017, is available online: www.caa.co.uk/CAP699

We Asked

The purpose of this consultation was for the CAA to learn your views on some changes we are considering making to our airspace change decision-making process.

Our objective is to ensure that it meets modern standards for regulatory decision-making, and that it is seen as fair, transparent, consistent and proportionate. The process should be impartial and evidence-based, and should take proper account of the needs and interests of all affected stakeholders.

You Said

We had 110 formal responses to the consultation, which we have published, where we have permission to do so. On the whole, stakeholders were supportive of the proposed new process.

In the ‘closed’ (yes or no) questions we found overwhelming support for the introduction of gateways into the process; engagement on design principles; the options appraisal concept; a single online portal; and the publication of consultation responses online. In addition there was broad support for the publication of airspace change submissions as early as possible, and for the Public Evidence Session.

In the ‘open’ (free text) responses we found there were overwhelmingly positive sentiments about the potential improvements to transparency; engagement (such as the introduction of the design principles stage, although there were also cautions about getting it right in practice) and certainty (such as the introduction of gateways). In addition, there were broadly positive sentiments about the potential improvements to fairness and proportionality (while the majority of sentiments were positive, there were significant numbers raising concern). 

There were however areas of concern or disagreement. Two thirds of those responding, across all categories of respondent, were opposed to responses to an airspace change consultation being made solely through the online portal. We noted some negative sentiments about flexibility and scalability. There were also differences of opinion between stakeholders on certain topics, including independent third-party involvement, appeals, and whether increasing costs were proportionate. We identified and categorised 363 recommendations as to how we could further improve the process.

We Did

We are maintaining, for the most part, the process proposed by our consultation, but with some modifications. We will now draft revised guidance on the new process, on which we will consult in spring 2017.

Some changes remain dependent on greater policy clarity from the Government, but the main outcomes are:

  • Fourteen-step process based on the existing process, with gateway sign-offs by the CAA to improve certainty
     
  • Single bespoke website forming an airspace change portal for anyone to view, comment on and access documents for every airspace change proposal, with offline submissions also accepted for the time being
     
  •  Airspace change sponsor early engagement with stakeholders on design principles
     
  • Formal options appraisal for each proposal where the sponsor shows how it has assessed the impacts of different designs at three stages in the process, building in detail as the number of options decreases
     
  • Recommended use by sponsor of an independent third-party facilitator to make early engagement with stakeholders on design principles more effective, and potentially also for formal consultation
     
  • Publication of airspace change consultation responses online as they are received
     
  • Categorising airspace change proposals by ‘Level’ according to the scale of the potential noise impact, to keep the process proportionate – including Level M for some military changes
     
  • Use of a standard template for formal submission of an airspace change proposal
     
  • Publication of final airspace change proposal on receipt, or as soon as possible thereafter  
     
  • Public Evidence Session for some changes with greater impact (‘Level 1’) allowing stakeholders to address the CAA decision-maker once a proposal has been submitted
     
  • Publication of a ‘minded to’ decision for public review for changes on which we believe there could be a risk of misinterpretation or misunderstanding of some of the evidence
     
  • CAA timescale commitments for gateway sign-offs and final decision
     
  • No formal appeal against a CAA decision
     
  • Clearer timescales and objectives for the Post-Implementation Review
     
  • No Oversight Committee
     
  • CAA recovery of additional costs through the en-route unit rate from 2020, and until then through a statutory charge on NERL and airports
     
  • New process implementation date not before August 2017
     
  • The immediate introduction of two procedural improvements, in the form of an Airspace Change Process Information Pack including a Regulatory Decision Template.

See also: