Consultation Hub

Whether to extend the Legacy and Transitional UAS provisions in the Open category.

We received 4,506 responses including 2,411 additional comments.

There is a clear and significant majority who favour an extension to both provisions beyond twenty-four months.

We have published a response document and podcast that explains the conclusions we’ve now come to and our recommendation to Government for taking the issue forward.

The purpose of this consultation was to ask for your views on our draft Statement of Policy on Penalties, as published in CAP2280.

Part 1 of The Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 (the Act) introduced new roles and powers for the CAA relating to airspace change proposals. The Act requires us to prepare, consult on and publish a statement of policy with respect to imposing penalties. Our draft statement set out the CAA’s proposed approach to imposing penalties, what factors we would use to determine the amount, and how we would consider aggravating and mitigating factors.

The consultation consisted of four questions, all of which invited free text responses:

1. Do you have any comments on the CAA’s proposed approach to imposing a penalty under Schedule 2 of the Act?
2. Do you have any comments on the CAA’s proposed approach to determining the amount of penalty?
3. Do you have any comments on the CAA’s consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors?
4. Do you have any comments on the CAA’s proposed approach to determining the form of penalty?

We received 11 responses in total, which are published here, where we have permission to do so. We asked respondents to place themselves in one of nine categories. Of the 11 responses:

• four were from members of the General Aviation community
• three were from representatives of the commercial aviation industry (airports or air navigation service providers)
• three were either users of remotely piloted aerial systems or their representative groups
• one was from someone from an organisation that provides social media commentary about remotely piloted aerial systems.

From our analysis of the 11 responses, we identified these themes:

• General concerns around the idea of forcing a sponsor to undertake an airspace change proposal, including when against their (business) interest – three responses referred to this concern, including that the process must be proportionate and include the right of appeal
• “Draconian” process and penalty amount – one response expressed concern that the process could put a company out of business
• CAA and ACOG’s involvement in the process – several responses made comment about the level of involvement of the CAA in the whole process; one comment suggested ACOG (the Airspace Change Organising Group, a separate and impartial unit within NATS (En Route) plc set up to prepare the airspace change masterplan) needed a code of conduct if it is involved in imposing penalties
• References to ‘persons’ – one response was concerned with imposing penalties on individuals, rather than organisations
• Evidence used by the CAA in determining the penalty – one response sought clarity on when evidence could be submitted
• Form of penalty – one response sought clarification on when one or both options (fixed or daily) would be used

Two responses commented on penalties for the inappropriate use or misuse of remotely piloted aircraft systems, which are the subject of Part 3 of the Act. While we always review all comments in full, we have not responded to these comments because they are out of scope for the purpose of this consultation exercise which relates to Part 1 of the Act only.

We have published the final version of our Statement of Policy on Penalties in Chapter 4 of CAP2431 Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 Part 1: Enforcement Guidance and Statement of Policy on Penalties.

This table summarises the changes we made to the statement as a result of the responses we received. It also explains why we did not change the document in response to other comments.

This diagram sets out a summary of the process prior to imposing a penalty.

It is vital that CAP1724 Flying Display Authorisation Standards Document remains up-to-date and relevant, and that the CAA’s guidance material in this area remains proportionate, clear and unambiguous.

We asked for feedback from the regulated community on proposed amendments to CAP 1724 ahead of the 2022 display season. 

We compiled a draft of CAP 1724 Edition 4 and consulted on it over 4 working weeks from 18 January 2022 until 15 February 2022. 

A total of 40 unique comments to the draft CAP from 16 respondents were received.

34 clearly conveyed some sort of change, 3 suggested no changes and 3 were unclear. Of these, 23 comments were textual in nature, suggesting revised wording or highlighting minor drafting points. Many of these comments were duplicated between respondents; and the other 11 comments were more substantive, calling for some sort of change of the underlying policy. 

20 of the comments were accepted (50%). Most of these comprised of suggested rewording of content for clarification. A further 4 comments were suggested where changes had already been made and 7 comments were noted as unclear / unspecific.

Of the remaining 9 elected not to implement, most called for revision to text that had been carefully drafted in cooperation and consultation with other groups. Others asked for further expansion on material that is covered adequately either in this document or elsewhere. Some suggested the introduction of content that was thought not necessary and outside the scope of this CAP.

We have produced a final version of CAP 1724 Edition 4 which was published on 9 March 2022.