Consultation Hub

For comments on the proposal that the CAA introduces an equivalent safety finding concerned with removal of some indications from the primary flight display during ground phases, when using a 3D Airport Moving Map (AMM) feature.

The UK CAA is consulting on an Equivalent Safety Finding that is applicable to CS-23 Normal Category Aeroplanes.

This Equivalent Safety Finding provides the compensating factors to reach an equivalent level of safety to direct compliance with CS-23 23.1303, 23.1311(a)(3) & 23.1321(d).

The Consultation Paper Equivalent Safety Finding UK.ESF.F.0003 Issue 1 provides the full detail of the identified issue, and the associated Equivalent Safety Finding.

We received 1 response.

This response highlighted the importance of preventing erroneous activation of the 3D Airport Moving Map (AMM) feature and highlighted potential failure effects of the AMM feature and the aircraft’s GPS system.

We acknowledge the response and thank the responder for their suggestion.

The comment is not incorporated. CAA consider that this comment is addressed by the following mitigations detailed in the Equivalent Safety Finding Consultation Paper UK.ESF.F.0003 Issue 1:

• If the indication is failed while removed (e.g. failure of the bank and pitch information when not displayed), the corresponding alerting is as efficient as when the indication is available.
• Mitigations have been put in place to compensate for the reduced exposure of flight crew to failures that may not be detected by the systems (e.g. frozen heading and airspeed on both sides).
• If the removed indication fails to be displayed when required or is erroneously removed during other flight phases (e.g. in cruise), the failure effect and compounding effects meet all applicable certification specifications.
• Appropriate procedures when needed to ensure Continued Safe Flight and Landing and to recover the removed information are introduced in the Aeroplane Flight Manual.

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.

In 2024 and 2025, we conducted several consultations arising from the GA Licensing Review, as detailed at Licensing & training simplification. The changes associated with these consultations came into force in September and October 2025.

We conducted a further consultation on additional proposals arising from the review planned for implementation in 2026. This included updates on proposals originally stated in the Spring 2024 consultation.

The proposals largely related to UK Regulation (EU) 1178/2011 (“the UK Aircrew Regulation”). A small number of changes were also proposed for UK Regulation (EU) 2018/395 (“the UK Balloon Regulation”).

The consultation included proposed draft changes to the text of the regulation for context.

The consultation ran from 7th August 2025 and closed on 8th August 2025. We received 560 responses to the consultation. Most respondents answered the survey questions and a proportion also left supporting comments. We reviewed all responses and comments left.

Following completion of the General Aviation Pilot Licensing Review ‘Wave 2’ proposals consultation, we have now published our formal Consultation Response Document (CRD).

The CRD summarises the responses we received to the consultation and the next steps for Wave 2 of the project.