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.

Open Consultations

  • CAA statutory charges FY21/22 consultation

    This consultation document explains our proposals for revisions to the existing CAA Charges Schemes, due to take effect from 1 April 2021. We believe our proposals represent a balanced approach to charging, reflecting current circumstances and the important role of the CAA in industry’s... More

    Closes 4 February 2021

  • CAP 1724 Flying Display Standards

    CAP 1724 was first published in February 2019 alongside CAP403 Flying Displays and Special Events, the aim being to ensure that the process of display pilot evaluation is standardised as far as is practicable. It provides a single point of access to guidance for Display Authorised pilots... More

    Closes 12 February 2021

Closed Consultations

We Asked, You Said, We Did

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

We asked

The purpose of the consultation was to hear your views on a draft procedure that sets out how the CAA will carry out its new role to review and, where appropriate, amend airspace classification.

Respondents were asked five questions (open text and multiple choice): general comments on the proposed procedure overall, specific feedback on the three stages in the procedure (Consider, Review and Amend), and views on cost impacts.

This consultation follows an earlier one in December 2019 where, in parallel with developing the new procedure, we asked for specific suggestions for volumes of controlled airspace where the classification could be amended. 
 

You said

We had 123 responses to the consultation, which we have published where we had permission to do so. Of the 123 responses, 72 were from members of the General Aviation community, 17 responses were from the commercial aviation industry, 12 from residents affected by aviation, and others were mostly from national or local representative bodies across the UK.

Overall, respondents expressed support for the concept and intention of the new procedure. In respect of the Consider, Review and Amend stages of the procedure, 63%, 60% and 59% respectively said that they were about right or that only some modifications were needed. There were also concerns about our proposals, such as a perceived lack of CAA commitment to undertake a review, the extent to which we engage with stakeholders, and whether the CAA’s decisions need independent oversight or an appeal process. Some also criticised the CAA for underestimating the cost impact of the procedure and said that reviewing airspace classification should not be a priority, especially in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic. 

Some respondents said that airspace modernisation needed a more holistic approach, and questioned how classification changes would interact with airspace change proposals going through the existing CAP 1616 process. We also received comments about the type of data sources we should use, how we should prioritise proposals in our biennial plan, and the use of flexible airspace management as an alternative to reclassification.

Furthermore, respondents questioned how we assess environmental impacts of proposed changes, how we obtain the vital input from the relevant airspace controlling authority, and how the effectiveness of a change would be reviewed once implemented. 

We did

We have published the new procedure as CAP 1991 Procedure for the CAA to review the classification of airspace and a summary as CAP 1991a.

The new procedure takes effect on 1 December 2020. Later in December 2020 we will add to this page our plan for the first volumes of airspace where we will be considering potential amendments to the classification. These have been chosen from those highlighted to us in response to the initial review that we launched in December 2019. A new CAA team dedicated to the review of airspace classification will start work on those in January 2021.

We have also published a consultation response document CAP 1990 Outcome of the consultation on a draft procedure for reviewing the classification of airspace giving an overview of the responses received, including a quantitative analysis of the multiple choice questions, and the main changes we made as a result of the consultation.

Update - December 2020

The CAA has undertaken a recruitment process to put in place the team that will be delivering this work.  The team has now been recruited. One team member joined the CAA at the beginning of December. The rest of the team will be starting early in the New Year.

The CAA has examined each of the proposed volumes to determine which could be taken forward to the “Amend” phase. In line with CAP1991, a filtering process was applied and accordingly proposals were considered as suitable for this procedure where the following factors did not apply:

  • Would the change have an adverse effect on military operations;
  • Does the volume sit within airspace that is currently the subject of a change in airspace design through the CAP1616 Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) process;
  • Does the volume sit within airspace that will be assessed by the CAA as part of the ACP post implementation review (PIR) process; or
  • Does the proposal have a significant environmental or operational impact?

A number of the proposed volumes related to airspace which sits within an existing or recently completed airspace change proposal process which will then be subject to a Post Implementation Review (PIR).  As set out in CAP 1991, where we do not progress a classification amendment because of an ongoing or recent change in airspace design, we will instead formally notify the airspace change sponsor and (where appropriate) the Airspace Change Organising Group of the intelligence we have received. We expect the airspace change sponsor to consider and respond to this intelligence in its final airspace design, or in the final PIR report.

We asked

Safety Standards Acknowledgement and Consent (SSAC) is used for remunerated flights that are solely for recreational benefit and which could otherwise be conducted if they were private flights but with no money changing hands. It is not intended to provide a cheaper alternative for operators engaged in the transport of passengers or as a means of normalising extreme risk-taking. 

It is vital that CAP 1395 Safety Standards Acknowledgment and Consent remains up-to-date and relevant and that the CAA’s guidance material in this area remains as proportionate and clear as possible. This third edition contains a significant restructuring of the layout which now incorporates SSAC guidance and requirements previously contained in CAP632 “Operation of Permit-to-Fly ex-military aircraft on the UK register” which we have also recently updated. Various minor amendments were also untaken throughout the document.
Despite the circumstances related to COVID-19 on the flying community more generally, and in SSAC operations in particular; we nevertheless continued our review of CAP1395 and asked for feedback on proposed amendments. 

We compiled a draft of CAP 1395 Edition 3 and consulted on it over six working weeks from 24 July to 4 September 2020.  We had preceded this with a short pre-consultation with certain members of the community to make sure our proposals were on the right track, to which we received 27 comments, of which the vast majority were textual.

You said

We received a total of 38 unique comments to the draft CAP from 9 respondents. All respondents were from the SSAC or display pilot community.

All the comments except two conveyed some sort of change. Of these:

  • Just under half (16: 44%) were textual, suggesting revised wording or highlighting minor drafting points. Many of these comments were duplicated between respondents; and 
  • Half (18) were more substantive in nature, calling for rethink of our approach or suggesting a change to the underlying policy.
  • Two were unclear or unspecific.

We did

We accepted 15 of the all the comments (42%).

Of the 16 textual comments received, we accepted 11. Most of these comprised rewording content for clarification, and we have tried to take a balanced view on what would be helpful. Of those we did not accept, two requested changes to text that most readers thought was satisfactory. Three called for revision to text that we had carefully drafted following extensive discussions internally.

Of the 18 comments that we regarded as more substantive, we implemented 4. Of the ones we chose not to implement, 9 suggested steps that we felt would have unintended consequences.  4 others asked us to expand on material that we thought was covered adequately either in this document or elsewhere. Finally one comment would have involved review or revision to underlying policy such as airworthiness, operations regulation or amendment to the underlying legislation, all of which are beyond the scope of this consultation. However, we welcome inputs to those wider policies, as and when these are released for public consultation.

Overall, we thank you for your comments and hope our revised CAP will be more workable for operators, pilots and participants.

Edition 3 has now been published: Safety Standards Acknowledgement and Consent (SSAC) Edition 3 

We asked

It is vital that CAP 632 Operation of Permit-to-Fly Ex-Military Aircraft on the UK Register remains up-to-date and relevant, and that the CAA’s guidance material in these areas remains as proportionate and clear as possible.

Despite the circumstances related to COVID-19 on the flying community more generally, we nevertheless continued our review of CAP632 and asked for feedback on proposed amendments. 

We compiled a draft of CAP 632 Edition 8 and consulted on it over six working weeks from 30 April to 12 June 2020.

You said

We received a total of 469 unique comments to the draft CAP from 23 respondents. All respondents were from the ex-military aircraft community including display pilots, operators, flying display directors, and other organisations. Three responses were formal submissions from representative bodies or associations.

All the comments except one conveyed some sort of change. Of these:

  • most (82%) were minor, suggesting revised wording or highlighting minor drafting points. Many of these were comments were duplicated between respondents; and  
  • the other 18% were more substantive in nature, calling for rethink of our approach or suggesting a change to the underlying policy.

We did

We accepted 358 of the all the comments (over 76%).

Of the 385 minor comments received, we accepted 78%. Most of these comprised rewording content for clarification, and we have tried to take a balanced view on what would be helpful. Several respondents requested changes to text that most readers thought was satisfactory. Others called for revision to text that we had carefully drafted following extensive discussions internally or with external organisations, and did not feel that the change would bring greater benefit than the drafting based on the prior in-depth collaborative analysis.

Of the 83 comments that we regarded as more substantive, we implemented just over 70%. A significant proportion of this group asked for consolidation of the content, and the cross-referencing (rather than duplication) of material read-across from other CAA documents or processes. One example of this concerned overlap with CAP1395, Safety Standards Acknowledgment & Consent, which is also in the process of being updated following a recent public consultation. As a result of these comments, we undertook a major redraft of this CAP, and believe the results address most of the substantive comments received.

Regarding that redraft, we have made the following broad categories of changes since the previous edition, resulting in a noticeably shorter document:

  • References to Safety Standards Acknowledgement and Consent (SSAC) have been removed from this publication and incorporated into CAP1395 “Safety Standards Acknowledgement and Consent”.
  • Re-structure and condensing of content
  • Removal of duplication where possible
  • Introduction of SRG1872 for initial OCM applications and variations
  • Introduction and reference to the CAA Scheme of Charges
  • Simplification of operator responsibilities
  • Introduction of an accountable manager role
  • Introduction of Continuing Airworthiness Coordinator role
  • Introduction of Mandatory Occurrence Reporting (MOR) in line with CAP382
  • Insertion of Fully Remunerated Flying Training application form (previously AIC 55/2016 which will be deleted)
  • Simplification of Operational systems requirements (eg for ejection seat & ATRE process).
  • Clarification on when passengers can be flown
  • Clarification on recommendations, and guidance as to what is regulation
  • Introduction of an example Dual Check form
  • Removal of chapter on Safety Management Systems and replaced with a link to CAP1059
  • Introduction of guidance for Commercial Operation

Regarding the 24 more substantive comments that we elected not to implement, most asked us to expand on material that we thought was covered adequately either in this document or elsewhere. Several comments also involved review or revision to underlying policy such as airworthiness, operations regulation or in some cases amendment to the Air Navigation Order (ANO), all of which are beyond the scope of this consultation. However, we welcome inputs to those wider policies, as and when these are released for public consultation.

Overall, we thank you for your comments and hope our revised CAP will be more workable for operators, pilots and others.

CAP 632 Operation of 'Permit-to-Fly' ex-military aircraft on the UK register (Edition 8) has now been published