Consultation Hub

The purpose of the consultation was to ask you to help us identify volumes of controlled airspace in which the classification could be amended to better reflect the needs of all airspace users on an equitable basis. The consultation asked respondents to each identify two volumes of airspace where amendments to current structures and access arrangements should be considered. Respondents were asked to identify the location of the opportunities as well as the flight level, and time of the day and year when the classifications could be amended. We asked respondents to provide a rationale and supporting evidence for their suggestions. In addition to the online consultation, the CAA held four public engagement events including three dedicated roundtables with groups that represent airspace users.

We had 604 responses to the consultation, which we have published where we have been given permission to do so. Most respondents identified themselves as members of the general aviation community, accounting for 557 of the 604 responses. Geographically, 274 respondents were in the South East, including those who represented an organisation based there; the remainder was spread across the UK.

Respondents were asked to submit up to two volumes of airspace each. With over 600 responses received, the CAA assessed over 1000 volumes of airspace submitted through the consultation. These opportunities corresponded to 57 locations across the UK. The full list of these locations is included in our report on the consultation, CAP 1935, available at the bottom of this page.

On the whole respondents expressed support for the concept and intention of the classification review and several comments were received on the engagement opportunity presented by the consultation. Despite welcoming the review, several concerns were expressed that it will fail to deliver any tangible benefits to the general aviation community.

There was a high level of dissatisfaction expressed over the visualisations included in the consultation. It was felt that the visualisation images did not provide a clear indication of activity in the various controlled airspace areas shown and questioned why movement data  was not supplied in the consultation.

Although support was expressed for the need to modernise and rationalise UK airspace to create structures which are safe, efficient and proportionate for all users, some respondents were concerned with the implications of continually increasing the level of controlled airspace. Similarly, concerns were expressed that the current restrictions on general aviation movements had resulted in flights being funnelled into tight corridors, creating pinch-points.

There was support shown for the introduction of using airspace flexibly, and several respondents commented on the need for technological solutions, such as electronic conspicuity, to be implemented to support its deployment. A number of respondents cautioned however that introducing flexible airspace around busy airfields could cause confusion and create a significant additional risk.

Strong comments were received from the general aviation community on airspace change decisions taken within the last few years, and the resulting detrimental effect they have had on the community and their ability to use airspace. There were also suggestions, in particular in the roundtables, that policies concerning lower airspace should be reviewed.

We have published a report on the consultation CAP 1935, available at the bottom of this page.  The CAA has also published CAP 1934, a consultation on our proposed procedure for amending airspace classifications. Once this new procedure has been agreed and implemented, we will use that to review the potential volumes of airspace submitted through this initial consultation and identify those where we think the classification could be amended in line with safety and security requirements.

In the consultation report we:

• list the airspace volumes suggested by respondents as candidates for a classification change;
• include case studies on three of the suggestions received, in which we illustrate how we might treat them under our proposed procedure, to illustrate how we would take the suggestions forward once the new procedure is in place (noting that this might change, when we amend our proposed procedure after the consultation);
• respond to each of the themes raised by respondents to explain our perspective and, where we agree that action is needed, what we will do. This includes a commitment to review the Controlled Airspace Containment Policy (January 2014) and the Application of ICAO Airspace Classifications in UK Flight Information Regions (November 2014).

For comments from industry on our proposals which were outlined in our consultation document.

This document includes the CAA responses to the main concerns expressed by the respondents to the 2010/21 Charges Consultation: CAA Response Document (CAP1880).

As a consequence of the severity of the current COVID-19 outbreak and its impact worldwide, the CAA has decided to delay the implementation of its recently proposed charge increases for three months to assist the UK aviation industry in these difficult times.

The CAA currently intends to review these matters in June 2020.

It is vital to update CAP660 Parachuting to ensure that the CAA’s guidance material in this area remains proportionate, unambiguous and congruent with the very latest best practices.

We asked for feedback from the community on proposed amendments to CAP 660 ahead of the 2020 season, and undertook a full public consultation from 23 December 2019 to 17 January 2020. 

We received a total of 178 unique comments to the draft CAP from 16 respondents. All respondents were from the parachuting community including parachute training or display organisations, associations or individual parachutists. Of all the comments, 110 conveyed some sort of change, of which:

• 65% were textual in nature, suggesting revised wording or highlighting minor drafting points; and  
• the other 35% were more substantive, calling for some sort of change of the underlying policy. 

We accepted 44 (38%) of the all the comments suggesting some sort of change. 

Of the 71 textual comments received, 35% resulted in changes to the text. Most of these comprised rewording content for clarification, and we have tried to take a balanced view on what would be helpful. Of the ones we were not able to accept, most (23) involved changes to CAA standard definitions which involves further work and may be considered in due course; seven suggested changes to text that was deemed satisfactory to the vast majority of respondents, and a few others changed material that was either explained elsewhere, or will be dealt with in another way.

Of the 39 substantive change requests, we implemented 18. These are obviously more difficult to consider as they require a re-think of fundamental policy or decisions already taken after careful assessment. Of these, 17 directly resulted in changes to the text. 

The most notable recurring issue among these were from respondents who are, or were representatives of, military-style round canopy parachutists. We carefully considered all of these and have made the following changes:

• p.41, table at para 3.130 regarding acceptable surface wind limits: inserted maxima for both student and experienced/display team round parachutists.
• p.43, table at paragraph 3.149 regarding minimum heights at which parachutists should have their main parachute open: inserted minima for round canopy parachutists (except during displays), and for British Skydiving ‘C’ license holders or equivalent using static line round parachutes during displays.
• p.49, paragraph 5.18 regarding reserve parachute canopy: introduced a front mounted round reserve parachute requirement for round canopy parachutists. 

In relation to comments we elected not to implement, seven concerned topics that need to be investigated more deeply and so we deferred them to either a separate document or the next edition of this CAP; six comments asked that we expand on material that we thought was covered adequately either in this document or elsewhere; and six suggested changes that would require substantial policy review including, in some cases, amendment to the Air Navigation Order (ANO), both of which are beyond the scope of this consultation. Finally, one covered an area that in our opinion has been adequately addressed, and one comment was not specific enough for us to take action.

We have produced a final version of CAP 660 Edition 5 which has now been published.