Consultation Hub

For comments against the introduction of this UKTSO Deviation. It provides a clear and consistent method for assessing interaction between the upper torso restraint and an occupant's neck in seating configurations utilising a 3-point restraint system.

The proposed approach reduces ambiguity within SAE AS8049C by defining acceptable assessment criteria where shoulder belt contact with the Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD) neck occurs during horizontal or vertical dynamic testing.

The UKTSO Deviation is supported by industry research, including neck injury assessment methodologies and test data from the automotive sector involving comparable restraint systems and belt-to-neck contact scenarios. The proposed criteria therefore represent a proportionate and evidence-based means of demonstrating compliance while maintaining an appropriate level of occupant safety.

Full details of the issue, supporting rationale, and proposed assessment method are contained within Consultation Paper UKTSO Deviation UKTSO-C127c.DEV.002, Issue 1.

A total of 10 responses were received during the consultation period.

The first response supported the proposed UKTSO Deviation without comment.

The second response recommended the consistent use of the term "restraint" throughout the document to improve continuity and readability. 

The third response proposed expanding the pass/fail criteria to permit a null test outcome where contact occurs with an unmodified chest jacket. 

The fourth response recommended the inclusion of a cross-reference to Section 4 to support the evaluation of chest jacket slippage. 

The fifth response addressed modifications to the ATD chest jacket, recommending that any cut surfaces be sealed or subject to periodic inspection to ensure foam degradation does not adversely affect test results. 

The sixth response requested additional clarification regarding the allowable contact zones on the Hybrid II ATD. 

The seventh response recommended the introduction of a marking procedure on the Hybrid II ATD chest jacket to clearly identify the projected position of the head skin. 

The eighth response requested the introduction of defined marking requirements for the belt guide to ensure consistency during assessment. 

The ninth response sought clarification regarding the application of rigid tape and its role within the assessment methodology. 

The tenth response raised concerns regarding consistency of assessment, noting that the marked surface may move during a dynamic test event. 

The UK CAA acknowledges and appreciates the feedback received from all respondents.

For the responses 1, 6, 7, 8, and 10, the comments were carefully considered but were not incorporated into the final UKTSO Deviation. While these comments raised relevant points, their inclusion was not considered necessary to meet the intent of the UKTSO Deviation or to support the proposed assessment methodology.

For the responses 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9, the comments were incorporated into the final UKTSO Deviation. The UK CAA considers these changes to improve the clarity, usability, and robustness of the proposed requirements while remaining aligned with the original intent of the UKTSO Deviation.

As a result of the consultation, several amendments have been made to enhance the final UKTSO Deviation document, while maintaining the objective of providing a clear and consistent means of assessing shoulder belt interaction with the ATD neck during dynamic testing.

The UKTSO Deviation UKTSO-C127c.DEV.002, Issue 1 has now been published in the Aviation Regulation Library.

On the 19^th May 2026 the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) published a Consultation on the proposed CAP 3254; Safety and Security of Cloud Computing (‘the consultation’).

Stakeholders across the aviation community including airport operators, ATM providers, UAS operators, and other aviation regulators responded constructively and in detail.

There was general support for the document’s intent, layout, and guidance. Some respondents asked for clearer proportionality on how this guidance applies, ensuring that it scales appropriately from small, single person operations to large, complex organisations.

Suggestions were provided from multiple respondents to include references to cloud security frameworks, aiding integration of security risk management that could influence safety while recognising the implementation of these frameworks needs to be proportionate to the organisation.

Overall, respondents supported the proposed information provided it remained consistent, proportionate, operationally focussed, and the wording provides clear risk-based guidance to assist in achieving regulatory outcomes.

The CAA has carefully considered all consultation responses received and thanks all contributors. The feedback largely was constructive, technically detailed, and informed by relevant operational experience.

A number of content additions and minor editorial changes were made as a result of feedback, but the guidance was largely published as consulted.

On the 3rd April 2026 the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) published a Consultation on the update to CAP 632; Operation of Permit‑to‑Fly Ex‑Military Aircraft on the UK Register (‘the consultation’). 

A total of 33 comments were received from stakeholders across the Ex-Military community. Respondents included operators, associations, engineers, and individuals with significant operational and technical experience.

There was general support for the document’s new intent, layout, and updated guidance.

The majority of comments (52%) related to changes of wording/guidance, reflecting a strong stakeholder interest in clarity and precision rather than fundamental policy change.

A smaller proportion of responses raised legal interpretation issues (12%) and formatting or drafting improvements (12%).

Some responses were identified as out of scope or not directly relevant (15%) to the consultation’s purpose.

The CAA has carefully considered all consultation responses received and thanks all contributors. The feedback was constructive, technically detailed, and informed by significant operational experience.

Most of the substantive comments have been considered in detail, and the document has been appropriately revised to improve clarity while retaining clear safety intent.

Of the 33 comments, 23 were accepted and where appropriate, revisions were made to ensure that there was consistency across sections with Improved readability. These accepted comments were largely focused on:

• Improving clarity of operational guidance
• Refining wording to remove ambiguity
• Aligning terminology with existing regulatory frameworks

Off the 33 comments,10 comments were declined, due to the following reasons:

• Some proposals were based on interpretations not aligned with existing regulations or factual inaccuracies.
• Several comments reflected personal preferences rather than evidence-based safety or regulatory considerations.
• A number of suggestions would have required broader policy changes, which were outside the scope of this consultation and would necessitate separate policy review.
• In some comments, issues raised were already addressed elsewhere in the document or regulatory framework.

The CAA has Taken a balanced and proportionate approach to all responses and incorporated changes where they enhance clarity, safety, and usability. The updated Edition 9 reflects strong stakeholder input, improved structure and continued alignment with UK aviation safety principles whilst ensuring guidance is clear, proportionate, and operationally relevant.

We have produced a final version of CAP632 which was published June 2026.