We Asked, You Said, We Did

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that the current limitations – restricting exemptions to urgent operational need or unforeseeable circumstances – are outdated and hinder progress.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.

We asked for views on a proposal to remove restrictions on the application and management of operational multi-pilot limitations (OML) on Class 1 medical certificates.

We invited stakeholders to consider the relevant implementing rules in Annex IV (Part-MED) of the Aircrew Regulation (UK Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011).

The consultation ran from 2 July 2025 to 31 July 2025.

We received 338 responses to the consultation from both individuals and organisations. The majority were in favour of the proposed changes to the legislation.

97% of responders agreed with the proposal to permit the issue of Class 1 medical certificates with an OML endorsement to initial applicants with certain well-controlled long-term medical conditions.

Several comments related to the dichotomy that currently exists between a commercial licence holder and a new applicant with the same medical condition. Responders felt that initial applicants should be treated in the same way as qualified pilots with medical conditions that are acceptable for multi-pilot operations. They also supported the removal of unnecessary barriers to individuals wanting to start a career as a commercial pilot.

Only ten responders disagreed with the addition of an OML to an initial Class 1 medical certificate. There were three comments. One response suggested that the medical standard should be higher for initial applicants than existing pilots. However, medical impairment and incapacitation events are rare, providing evidence that the current standards for a fit assessment with an OML are appropriate. In addition, the presence of another pilot (or pilots) in multi-pilot operations is a significant mitigation for risks associated with pilot incapacitation.

Two other responders felt that an OML should only be used to extend the careers of pilots already in the profession but this forgoes the opportunity to enable more individuals to access training, which in turn will contribute to addressing the shortage of pilots.

94% of responders supported the proposal to remove the rostering restrictions for commercial licence holders with an OML on their medical certificate.

Most comments indicated that the current legislation is overly restrictive. Reasons in support of removing the constraints included:

• lifestyle rather than age as the determinant of health and fitness
• advances in the management and monitoring of medical conditions
• the presence of another pilot on the flight deck and often additional ‘heavy’ crew on board
• informed risk assessment in the case of known medical conditions
• the extremely low probability of two medical events occurring at the same time

Some responders commented on the benefits of removing the restrictions, including:

• easier rostering and workforce flexibility
• better choice and career prospects for existing pilots
• opportunities for older individuals wanting to enter the profession
• wider deployment of experienced instructors and examiners who have an OML or have reached the age of 60 years
• less operational disruption

Nineteen responders opposed lifting the rostering restrictions, with only two comments. One responder was concerned about two pilots flying together, each having an OML for the same susceptibility or condition, such as hypoxia or an allergy. The other raised the potential for older pilots to have reduced performance or to be less fit.

In response to these concerns, notwithstanding the proposed amendments, the CAA would retain the authority to impose any limitation on the holder of a medical certificate to ensure flight safety. It is also the case that commercial pilots with an OML and older pilots are subject to more frequent review and examination on account of their medical condition and / or age.

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.

The CAA recognises the importance of acting proportionately and minimising the legislative burden to industry. We see this as an opportunity to remove barriers and restrictions on the application and management of the OML endorsement on Class 1 medical certificates created by the current legislation, with no adverse effect on flight safety.

Most responders supported the proposal to amend the legislation in the two areas consulted upon. The revised policy will benefit both new and existing pilots, provide resource and rostering flexibility to aircraft operators, and support the safe and sustainable functioning of the aviation industry. We will therefore be proceeding with the next phase of the rulemaking task. Work has commenced with the Department for Transport to prepare the Statutory Instrument for Parliament. We anticipate that the amendments to the Aircrew Regulation (UK Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011) will be implemented in late 2026 or early 2027.

For comments on the proposal that the CAA introduces a Special Condition to be used in addressing the integration of a moveable wall into a mini-suite seat, resulting in a “PRM Suite”, in twin aisle large aeroplane interiors.

The Consultation Paper Special Condition UK.SC.D.0001 Issue 1 provides the full detail of the identified issue, and the associated Special Condition.

We received 3 responses.

The first response provided confirmation that the development of a Special Condition would not be applicable to the organisation’s designs or its products. This required no action by the CAA.

The second response proposed addition of further Interpretive Material to support understanding, and to further improve alignment with other global Regulators.

The third response proposed enhancement to the definitions within the text, and proposed wording changes aimed at making the text more specific to the crew operation of a moveable wall, and proposed to remove some text due to being unduly prescriptive.

We acknowledge the responses and thank the responders for their suggestions.

For the second response the comment is accepted and has been incorporated. Additional Interpretive Material has been included in the final SC publication.

For the third response, the comment is partly accepted. The suggestion of enhancement of definitions has been incorporated, and the text within the Identification of Issue section has been revised in the final SC publication. The proposal for wording changes and removal of some text considered prescriptive, has not been incorporated.

The CAA believes the context of the existing text to be clear and the parts subject to comment well aligned to that of other Regulators, and while the comments are relevant, the removal of the text proposed would also remove the intent of the requirement.

We asked for feedback on a proposal to amend the legislation to permit either physical or electronic form of licence or certificate to be issued.

The consultation ran from 12 May 2025 to 22 June 2025 and stakeholders were encouraged to review the copy of ICAO Annex 1 Chapter 5 and Appendix 4 included with the consultation prior to responding.

We received a total of two hundred and twenty (220) responses to the consultation. Across all licensing and certification areas an average of 69% of respondents supported the proposed amendments, 5% did not support the proposals and 26% indicated the question was not applicable.

Two responses questioned the cost and/or need to consult on this regulatory change.

Thirty-one licensing and twelve medical certificate responses expressed a preference to have the option of both physical and electronic licences, some suggesting a card style format to replace the current paper licence. A small number of responses said the choice of physical or electronic should be the licence holders. The licence form used by other Authorities was mentioned in several responses. 

Multiple responses offered views and feedback on the design of a digital licensing system including use of wallet technology; validation technology; inclusion of photo identification and the ability to sign up in the field.

Confidence concerns surrounding the introduction of an electronic system were shared in feedback. Specific areas of concern were identified as: issues with access to the electronic licence; access to internet or loss of data connection; mobile phone loss or failure; battery charge issues; difficulties associated with rolling out an electronic system; widespread system failures; integration of systems; and GDPR concerns due to the requirement to carry an electronic device.

We acknowledge the responses and thank the responders for their suggestions.

The need to consult with interested parties on the development of rules that could have important social implications is set out in the Basic Regulation. The consultation process is also inherent in UK law and consultation is widely used to support this principle.  

The CAA recognises the importance to licence holders of having physical evidence of achieving licence status. It is not possible to run concurrent systems whereby an individual holds both an electronic and a hard copy licence issued for the same kind of licence.

ICAO Doc 9379 states that issuance of an electronic licence is optional and can be introduced for all licenced aviation personnel or certain groups, however no individual should have both an EPL (electronic personnel licence) and a hard copy for the same kind of licence. Following the introduction of the electronic personnel licence for a specific licence group, issuing both a physical copy and an electronic copy of the licence would leave the UK at variance with the Convention on International Civil Aviation. The UK, being an ICAO signatory state, follows ICAO requirements.

It should be noted that the FAA, EASA, CASA, and Transport Canada are exploring digital licensing. Brazil has introduced an electronic licensing system. China has already introduced a digital licensing system that is ICAO compliant.  

The CAA will ensure that all aspects of GDPR and the Data Protection Act under UK law are complied with. ICAO Doc 9379 requires all signatory states to the Convention on International Civil Aviation to provide appropriate security in accordance with their national legislation.

All feedback, recommendations on the application process/design and functionality of a digital licensing system, and confidence concerns surrounding the introduction of a digital licensing system have been shared with the Customer Experience and Modernisation Programme (Cx&M) team delivering this project, to feed into and inform their work. Further feedback can be sent directly to cx@caa.co.uk. The Cx&M Team will be conducting user research in 2026 on possible designs, and opportunities to take part in this research will be posted on the CAA website.

Conclusion

The CAA considers that the proposal to amend the legislation to permit either physical or electronic form of licence or certificate to be issued, in all areas consulted, is supported by the majority of responses.

We are working with the Department for Transport (DfT) to implement the proposed changes by Q2-Q3 2026.

In some areas, we need to develop appropriate Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC), Guidance Material (GM) and other CAA publications (CAPs) to support the planned changes to regulation. These will be consulted on prior to the introduction of the Statutory Instrument.

We notified our intention to update SC.VTOL issue 1, which had been published prior to EU exit. EASA published issue 2 to their document in 2024 in light of developing knowledge and harmonisation efforts with other NAA. The CAA has determined that our version Issue 1 of SC.VTOL needs to be similarly revised.

There were 2 external comments.

1 expressed support for the initiative and our work to harmonise with other NAAs undertaking similar projects.
No action for CAA.
1 expressed a concern regarding the various terms being used to describe this new category of aircraft.

The CAA notes this comment and supports the efforts being made to converge on a unified designation. We look forward to ICAO establishing a consensus designation at which point we will review how this could be integrated into our broader regulations framework.
Minor editorial errors were identified requiring “EASA” to be replaced with “CAA” in a number of places.

The text of UK.SC.VTOL Iissue 2 will be published unchanged, apart from the minor editorial corrections to replace “EASA” with “CAA” where appropriate.

We asked for feedback on a proposal to amend the Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) to the UK Aircrew Regulation.

The consultation ran from 25 March 2025 to 6 May 2025. To help with the contextual understanding of the consultations, draft implementing rules were included for reference purposes only as per the Opinion and Instruction Documents (OID) submitted to the Department for Transport (DfT).

The implementing rules provided for reference had already been the subject of consultation in Phase 2 of the project. Stakeholders were reminded that while the legislative drafting process continued, the draft implementing rules should not be taken as the final wording of UK law as all amendments to legislation are subject to a drafting process by Government.

We received a total of ninety-five (95) responses to the consultation. We received overwhelming support for the changes relating to partial power loss (PPL(A)) and the use of moving maps in both PPL syllabi, with 85% and 95% agreeing respectively as well as including it in the PPL skill tests, with 86% in support.

We sought comments on the new NPPL(A) to PPL(A) theoretical knowledge bridging requirements. A total of 37 respondents had a view. The majority supported our proposals. A small number felt it was unnecessary as any NPPL SEP/TMG holder would have already completed the PPL(A) exams.

In addition, we sought feedback on the revised crediting of previous flight experience towards a PPL(A). 80% of respondents supported the changes to the AMC for FCL.210.A and 74% supported the changes to the GM.

Some of the comments on the proposed AMC to facilitate the new 35 hour PPL(A) course indicated that this may be unrealistic to achieve as the average hours to complete a PPL(A) is around 55-60 and they felt it may give new student pilots false expectations of saving money.

We also sought feedback on the AMC to FCL.740.A. We saw broad support to all amendments as well as comments on each of them. Some common themes in the comments were:

• Too prescriptive/detailed
• Too similar to a skill test/exam
• Training flight shouldn’t have to be an hour long
• Training flight shouldn’t have to be one flight
• Exemption from the refresher flight for IMC flight tests

Finally, we sought feedback on the AMC and GM to the revised DTO.GEN.240 and ORA.ATO.135. We received majority support with 56% of respondents agreeing. 37% of respondents had no view on the amendments.

We acknowledge the responses and thank the responders for their suggestions. A number of editorial changes were made as a result of feedback, but the AMC / GM was largely published as consulted.

The feedback regarding the AMC to FCL.740.A was reviewed in detail and we may publish further supplementary material in the future. It is emphatically not the intention for the relevant refresher training to become a test, and instructors are expected to exercise discretion in terms of what flight exercises they focus on.

The need to consult with interested parties on the development of rules that could have important social implications is set out in the Basic Regulation. The consultation process is also inherent in UK law and consultation is widely used to support this principle.  

Conclusion

The CAA has now amended/implemented the proposed AMC and GM into the UK Aircrew Regulation.

We asked for feedback on a proposal to amend the Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) to the UK Sailplane Regulation.

The consultation ran from 25 March 2025 to 6 May 2025. To help with the contextual understanding of the consultations, draft implementing rules were included for reference purposes only as per the Opinion and Instruction Documents (OID) submitted to the Department for Transport (DfT).

The implementing rules provided for reference had already been the subject of consultation in Phase 2 of the project. Stakeholders were reminded that while the legislative drafting process continued, the draft implementing rules should not be taken as the final wording of UK law as all amendments to legislation are subject to a drafting process by Government.

We received a total of four hundred and seventy-nine (479) responses to the consultation. We received strong support for the amendments to AMC/GM for SFCL.050 and SFCL.130.

The amendments to the AMC for SFCL.135 received overwhelming support.

The amendments to the AMC for SFCL.145 (practical skill test), to include partial loss of power, AMC for SFCL.150 (extension of privileges), to include gliding club and AMC for SFCL.160 (recency), to remove the authorisation process within ORA.ATO.135 of Annex VII (Part ORA) or point DTO.GEN.240 of Annex VIII for aircraft listed in (c) or (d) of Annexe 1 to the UK Basic Regulation, also received very strong support.

Overwhelming support was also received for the amended AMC and the new GM for SFCL.200, including unsupervised solo practice for advanced aerobatics after successful dual training of the specific manoeuvre and logbook signature by an FI(S), and the amended AMC for SFCL.205, removal of all references to sailplane towing rating.

All amendments and new AMC and GM for SFCL.315, SFCL.325, SFCL.330, SFCL.340, SFCL.345, SFCL.360 and SFCL.365, all relating to the introduction of the BI(S), were all highly supported. There were a number of comments raised regarding the regulation change itself however these were not relevant to this consultation. We did receive a high volume of comments praising the introduction of the BI(S) and the work the CAA and BGA have done to get this into the regulation.

Finally, the amendments to AMC and GM for SFCL.415 and SFCL.430, amendments to examining support the introduction of the BI(S), received overwhelming support.

We acknowledge the responses and thank the responders for their suggestions.

The need to consult with interested parties on the development of rules that could have important social implications is set out in the Basic Regulation. The consultation process is also inherent in UK law and consultation is widely used to support this principle.  

Conclusion

The CAA has now amended/implemented all of the proposed AMC and GM into Part-SFCL.

We asked for feedback on a proposal to amend the Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) to the UK Balloon Regulation.

The consultation ran from 25 March 2025 to 6 May 2025. To help with the contextual understanding of the consultations, draft implementing rules were included for reference purposes only as per the Opinion and Instruction Documents (OID) submitted to the Department for Transport (DfT).

The implementing rules provided for reference had already been the subject of consultation in Phase 2 of the project. Stakeholders were reminded that while the legislative drafting process continued, the draft implementing rules should not be taken as the final wording of UK law as all amendments to legislation are subject to a drafting process by Government.

We received a total of eleven (11) responses to the consultation. We received full support for the crediting of coaching time.

The amendments/new AMC and GM for BFCL.130 received mixed support. Whilst most supported the changes to allow FI(B) to conduct training for student pilots outside of an ATO/DTO setting, some felt that the burden to keep paperwork was too much for an individual. Full support was given towards removing the tethered rating and including it within initial licence training. Strong support was given on the amendments to the syllabus although two were not comfortable with the 5,000 ft flight. Full support was given to the amendments for BFCL.135

We received strong support for the new AMC for BFCL.150(e) with regards to gaining a mixed balloon class, as well as strong support for the amendments/new AMC for BFCL.160 regarding recency. We did receive a couple of comments regarding referencing SERA.5005 rather than including the wording from SERA.5005. This has been done to future proof the AMC. If SERA.5005 changes in the future, then it is automatically incorporated instead of the CAA having to amend AMC to reflect any changes.

The new and amended AMC to support the separation of the Commercial Operation rating into two individual ratings, BFCL.215 (commercial non-passenger operation rating) and BFCL.220 (commercial passenger operation rating), received some support. The comments received related to the regulation change itself and were therefore not relevant to this consultation.

The new AMC for BFCL.315 was fully supported as were the amendments to the AMC for BFCL.330, with the exception of the 5,000 ft flight as previously expressed.

The new and amended AMC for BFCL.415 and the new AMC and GM for BFCL.470 were all fully supported. One respondent felt that we should restrict the number of Senior Examiners issued rather than issue to all FE’s with more than 1000 hours. This is already in the regulation itself (BFCL.470 -The CAA will appoint, where required, Senior Examiners (Balloons)).

We acknowledge the responses and thank the responders for their suggestions.

The need to consult with interested parties on the development of rules that could have important social implications is set out in the Basic Regulation. The consultation process is also inherent in UK law and consultation is widely used to support this principle.  

Conclusion

The CAA has now amended/implemented all of the proposed AMC and GM into Part-BFCL.

We asked for comments on the Policy Proposal to make changes to UK Regulation (EU) 965/2012 to align with new standards and recommended practices introduced by Chapter 15 of Annex 6, Part I - Commercial Air Transport Operations – Aeroplanes. The proposed changes included Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material to support the proposed changes to the Implementing Rule (IR).

We asked if the proposed transition period of 21 days following the publication of the Statutory Instrument was acceptable.

To support the CAA’s understanding of costs that should be considered beyond the existent Compliance Monitoring and Safety Management Systems that are required to be in place by virtue of the Air Operations Regulations, we asked operators to provide estimates of what costs could be incurred for the adoption and implementation of these regulatory changes. We also asked for operators to consider benefits which could result from the adoption of the proposed changes. Such costs could include those related to transition and adoption of these changes, additional oversight requirements, training requirements, or staff resourcing. Benefits could include costs that an operator avoids due to the implementation of the Specific Risk Assessment, which would enable sufficient mitigation and prevention of accidents or incidents that could result in the loss of the aircraft, revenue, reputation or any other assets.

The results of this consultation were intended be used to guide the development of the regulatory changes, refine the AMC and GM and contribute to the assessment of monetary impact to industry.

The consultation of the Policy Proposal ended on 02 May 2025. There were 3 responses to the consultation with requests for the comments provided to be published.

Two responses agreed with the proposed policy and changes.

One response requested clarification on the Policy Proposal and disagreed with the proposed changes, on the basis that these changes would require aircraft cargo compartments to have fire detection and suppression systems. In the commentator’s view, many aircraft in operation lack such systems, and no manufacturer-approved modifications exist to install them. There was additional concern that if compliance to this perceived requirement would not be possible, such aircraft could be effectively grounded, causing significant operational and economic disruptions for operators.

The commentator presented the following solutions:

1. For the UK CAA to reconsider the proposed regulation and introduce specific alleviations for operators of aircraft that cannot feasibly comply.
2. Exemptions or alternative compliance measures could be granted for aircraft below a certain seating capacity (e.g., 19 seats) or a specific maximum take-off mass (MTOM).
3. Instead of requiring cargo fire suppression systems that are not available for these aircraft, operators could incorporate alternative risk mitigation measures into their safety risk assessments.
4. Mitigations could include enhanced baggage screening, stricter restrictions on the types of cargo permitted, verbal confirmations from passengers regarding the contents of their luggage, and other operational procedures to minimise fire risks.

It was considered unreasonable to expect operators to go through the complex and time-consuming process of producing an Alternative Means of Compliance (AltMOC) to continue operating, which could result in aircraft being temporarily grounded while awaiting approval, increasing the administrative burden on both operators and the CAA. Additionally, such operators could possibly not even consider this issue a high-risk concern in their existing safety risk registers, making the AltMOC process an unnecessary regulatory hurdle.

It was suggested that the adoption of a risk-based approach, the regulation could maintain high safety standards while ensuring that aircraft without fire suppression systems are not unfairly grounded due to impractical compliance requirements.

There was also a disagreement on the proposal for the changes to become effective 21 days after publication, as it was perceived as a very short transitional period for the adoption of the changes. 

A concern was raised on the references made in GM1 to ICAO Doc 10102 - Guidance for Safe Operations Involving Aeroplane Cargo Compartments which perceivably focuses on the BOWTIE risk assessment methodology and the possibility of focusing on just one method could lead to an interpretation that this is the only method that will be accepted or expected. 

No comments or feedback was provided on the questions related to costs and benefits of the proposed changes.

1. a) With regard to the request for clarification and expressed disagreement with the proposed changes, the CAA’s response is that other than the systems required by the aircraft certification standards, there are no additional requirements for an aircraft to be equipped with a fire detection or suppression system, nor is there any intention of grounding any type of aircraft.

b) The requirement is that the operator establishes policies and procedures for the transport of items in the cargo compartments that take into consideration both the existence or not of such systems and conducts a risk assessment which includes consideration of any item that is being carried in the aircraft cargo compartment.

c) The policy intent is that whether fire detection and suppression systems are installed or not, when associated with the conduct of a safety risk assessment, it should enable operators to establish policies and design procedures that prevent or mitigate the effects of an uncontrolled fire that can be caused by items being carried in the cargo compartment until it can safely land, whether it be cargo, baggage, or mail.

d) It should be noted that these proposed changes do not introduce any additional regulatory requirements on a Specific Approval granted by the CAA to carry dangerous goods as cargo, under UK Regulation (EU) 965/2012, Annex V, Part-SPA. The conduct of the specific risk assessment mentioned in the proposed policy, is not intended to  replace  compliance with the requirements contained in the ICAO Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous goods by Air (Doc 9481), whether being carried as cargo or under the provisions for passengers and crew.  

e) If an operator does not hold a specific approval to carry dangerous goods as cargo, the focus of the risk assessment should be on the carriage of anything that can pose a risk of fire, whether it be in cargo other than dangerous goods, baggage or mail.

f) With regard to the mitigation measures proposed by the commentator in paragraphs A. and B. above the CAA would like to clarify that the proposed changes require operators to establish policies and procedures for the carriage of items being carried in the cargo compartment of an aeroplane, which consider the design elements of the cargo compartment of the aircraft and include the conduct of a specific risk assessment that addresses the hazards of the items being carried.

Therefore, on the basis that the proposed changes do not require installation of cargo compartment detection and suppression systems, the suggestion for alleviations or exemptions for operators who cannot feasibly comply, or for aircraft under a specific seatings capacity or MTOW, are not relevant.

For paragraph C. above, the introduction of risk mitigations in the operator’s risk assessments where the aircraft is not equipped with fire detection or suppression systems, is what the changes propose.

In response to paragraph D. baggage screening systems are designed solely for security purposes. The requirements and responsibilities for provision of information to passengers on what they can and cannot carry in their baggage and restrictions on the  carriage of dangerous goods as cargo are addressed in UK Regulation (EU) 965/2012, Annex IV, Part-CAT, Subpart CAT.GEN.MPA.200 and the ICAO Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous goods by Air (Doc 9481), Part 7; (Operators responsibilities) and Part 8; (Provisions for passengers and crew).

Additional requirements on operators’ responsibilities with regards to operations of the aircraft, Compliance Monitoring and Safety Management System, are covered by: UK Regulation (EU) 965/2012, Annex III, Part-ORO, Subpart ORO.GEN.110 and UK Regulation (EU) 965/2012, Annex III, Part-ORO, Subpart ORO.GEN.200 (a)(3) and (6).

g) in response to the paragraph where concerns were raised on the need for an AltMOC, there may be scope for the CAA to slightly amend the wording contained in AMC2, paragraphs (4) and (5) to reduce  the need for submissions of AltMOCs and to ensure that these should only be considered if applicable. However, the use of an alternative means of compliance to those adopted by the CAA, is entirely up to the operator.

h) It is therefore the position of the CAA that no action needs to be taken, other than that mentioned in the above paragraph (g), because in the proposed changes, emphasis is given to a risk-based approach to achieve regulatory compliance in a manner which:

i) will provide operators with operational flexibility to adopt mitigating measures which are proportionate to the risks identified in specific geographic areas of operation and the confidence in the supply chain,

ii) will allow the operator to manage the risks associated with the carriage of lithium batteries when carried with other dangerous goods, and

iii) will allow the operator to proactively improve their safety management system.

 

2. In the disagreement on the proposed changes becoming effective 21 days after publication of the SI, that CAA agrees that the period is too short and will adopt the suggested transition period of 3 months.

As for the concern raised on the references made to BowTie in ICAO Doc 10102 - Guidance for Safe Operations Involving Aeroplane Cargo Compartments, Doc 10102 is not the only reference for guidance on risk assessment made by the proposed changes. GM1 also references Doc 9859 (Safety Management Manual on the conduct of risk assessments. It should be noted that BowTie is a tool designed to map or build a risk picture and designed for the analysis of hazards/threats that can produce an event and an undesired outcome. It is not designed to be used as a risk assessment. The commentator will also note that the risk assessment process is addressed in a separate Chapter of Doc 10102 (Chapter 5). Therefore, the CAA does not feel there is a need to provide further clarification on the Guidance material referenced on the proposed changes.   

It is vital that CAP 1724 Flying Display Pilot Authorisation and Evaluation: Requirements and Guidance remains up-to-date and relevant, and that the CAA’s guidance material in these areas remains proportionate, clear and unambiguous.

We asked for feedback from the regulated community on proposed amendments to CAP 1724 ahead of the 2025 display season. 

We compiled a draft of CAP 1724 Edition 7 and consulted on it over four working weeks from 16 January 2025 to 12 February 2025. 

We received a total of 48 unique comments to the draft CAP 1724 from 15 respondents.  

Of all the comments, 27 clearly conveyed some sort of change and 21 were either unclear / not specific or suggested no changes, many being purely comments.  21% of all the comments supported the proposed amendments.

Of the 27 conveying a change, 17 were textual in nature, suggesting revised wording or highlighting minor drafting / clarification points, several being duplicated between respondents.  The other 10 comments were more substantive, calling for some sort of change of the underlying policy. 

We accepted 4 of the 27 comments suggesting some sort of change (15%).  3 of these comprised of rewording content or the addition of further information for additional clarification, we have tried to take a balanced view on what would be helpful.  The other comment concerned a minor policy change.

Of the remaining 23, 8 concerned points that were already covered elsewhere (either in this CAP or CAP403), 7 concerned issues that are beyond the scope of this CAP, 1 suggested a change that had already been made, 2 were unclear / not specific and 5 were aimed at sensitive text that we are unable to change.

Regarding the 10 more substantive comments we received, we implemented 1. Of those we elected not to implement, some were beyond the scope of CAP 1724, others were covered adequately either in this document or elsewhere, some concerned suggestions for unacceptable changes to policy and it was considered that the remaining might have further unintended consequences.

We have produced a final version of CAP 1724 Edition 7 which was published on 10 March 2025. 

For comments on the Notification of Intention to Surrender the Type Certificate for the HS 748 (EASA.A.397 Issue 2). Notification Number UK.CN.00001 provided the full details.

Note that CAA is acting in accordance with ICAO Annex 8, Chapter 1, Section 1.6 (Thirteenth Edition, July 2022) in notifying ICAO Contracting States and States of Registry.

We received no comments during the consultation.

We have informed the Type Certificate holder that the consultation period has ended with no comments. The CAA will provide a further notification advising the date on which the Type Certificate is to be revoked.

For comments on the proposal that the CAA introduces a deviation concerned with flight crew alerting on a large transport aeroplane.

The UK CAA is consulting on a Deviation that is applicable to CS-25 Large Aeroplanes. This Deviation provides the compensating factors to reach an acceptable level of mitigation to allow issuance of the type certificate with the non-compliance to CS 25.1322.

This is based the use of an approach to the cockpit philosophy on flight crew alerts which has been approved and is common to previous types certified by the same manufacturer.

The Consultation Paper Deviation UK.DEV.F.0001 Issue 1 provides the full detail of the identified issue, and the associated Deviation.

We received 2 responses.
The first response primarily related to the number of memory actions required, and pilot training when multiple ratings are held.

The second response proposed a number of wording changes aimed at making the text more specific to flight crew alerts, and proposes eliminating some text perceived by the commenter to be redundant. In addition, the commenter considers that CS 25.1322(c)(2) has not been addressed and should be addressed.

We acknowledge the responses and thank the responders for their suggestion.
For response 1, the comment is not incorporated. While the comments are relevant, their incorporation would is not considered to address the intent of the deviation and mitigations presented to the non-compliance.

For response 2, the comment is not incorporated. The deviation scope is considered to be clearly centred around Flight Crew Alerting, and the current text is considered to be clear within this context.

Further, the CAA consider that the text proposed for deletion by the commenter is not redundant, but is necessary and focussed on the requirements addressed by the deviation. CS 25.1322(c)(2) is addressed in Appendix A Table 4.

It is vital that CAP 403 Flying Displays and Special Events: Safety and Administrative Requirements and Guidance remains up-to-date and relevant, and that the CAA’s guidance material in these areas remains proportionate, clear and unambiguous.

We asked for feedback from the regulated community on proposed amendments to CAP 403 ahead of the 2025 display season. 

We compiled a draft of CAP 403 Edition 22 and consulted on it over four working weeks from 09 December 2024 to 03 January 2025.

We received a total of 65 unique comments to the draft CAP 403 from 12 respondents.  

Of all the comments, 44 clearly conveyed some sort of change and 21 were either unclear / not specific or suggested no changes, many being purely comments. 

Of the 44 conveying a change, 27 were textual in nature, suggesting revised wording or highlighting minor drafting / clarification points, several being duplicated between respondents.  The other 17 comments were more substantive, calling for some sort of change of the underlying policy. 

We accepted 12 of the 44 comments suggesting some sort of change (27%). 10 of these comprised of rewording content or the addition of further information for additional clarification, we have tried to take a balanced view on what would be helpful.  The other 2 concerned minor policy changes.

Of the remaining 32, 12 concerned points that were already covered elsewhere (either in this CAP or CAP1724), 8 were comments that were unclear / not specific or concerned issues with formatting that we were unable to replicate, 8 were aimed at sensitive text that had been changed to align with and reflect wider CAA policy and 4 involved suggested changes to underlying policy.

Regarding the 17 more substantive comments we received, we implemented 2. Of those we elected not to implement, some were beyond the scope of CAP403, others were covered adequately either in this document or elsewhere, some concerned suggestions for unacceptable changes to policy and it was considered that the remaining might have further unintended consequences.

We have produced a final version of CAP 403 Edition 22 which was published on 4 February 2025. 

For comments on the proposal that the CAA introduces a special condition to be used for the crashworthiness conditions of a conformal rear centre fuel tank installation on a large transport aeroplane.

The UK CAA is consulting on a Special Condition that is applicable to CS-25 Large Aeroplanes.

This Special Condition is to address the design change that introduces a conformal fuselage structural fuel tank to the aeroplane, also called rear centre tank (RCT), and the unusual design of the RCT should prevent fuel spillage in sufficient quantities to start a serious fire in an otherwise survivable crash event.

The Consultation Paper Special Condition UK.SC.C.0001 Issue 1 provides the full detail of the identified issue, and the associated Special Condition.

We received 1 response.
The response agrees that additional guidance for fuel tank crashworthiness is appropriate and recognised that the proposed special condition is substantively similar to the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) special condition SC-E25.963-01; however, the responder did not consider that special conditions were necessary to address this novel design feature and that establishing acceptable means of compliance with the introductory requirement stated in 14 CFR 25.963(d), and ensuring the applicant makes every practicable consideration to ensure protection of fuel tanks in more severe crash conditions that exceed, or are not captured by, the conditions specified in 14 CFR 25.963(d)(1) through (d)(5), especially tanks located in the fuselage below the main cabin floor, is an acceptable approach to this novel design feature.

We acknowledge the response and thank the responder for their suggestion. The CAA believes that creating the Special Condition rather than a Means of Compliance provides a stronger, clearer criteria that the aircraft must achieve for this unusual configuration and the specific crashworthiness case, and that aligning with the Certificating Authority’s approach, given the common requirements set on this project, is more appropriate in this case.

For comments on the proposal that the CAA introduces a special condition to be used to protect the cabin occupants during evacuation of fuel tank explosion triggered by an external ground fuel fed fire.

The UK CAA is consulting on a Special Condition that is applicable to CS-25 Large Aeroplanes.

This Special Condition is to address the design change that introduces the conformal fuselage structural fuel tank to the aeroplane, also called rear centre tank (RCT), and the protection of cabin occupants during evacuation, from the risk of fuselage tank explosion triggered by an external fuel fed ground fire.

The Consultation Paper Special Condition UK.SC.E.0001 Issue 1 provides the full detail of the identified issue, and the associated Special Condition.

We received 1 response.
The response agrees that the proposed Special Condition is substantively the same as the equivalent EASA Special Condition and the harmonised FAA Special Condition, the difference with the FAA Special Condition being wording clarification only. The response suggested that CAA should align the CAA Special Condition wording with that of the FAA Special Condition.

We acknowledge the response and thank the responder for their suggestion.
The CAA believes that the wording of the CAA Special Condition is sufficiently clear and that aligning with the Certificating Authority’s Special Condition, given the common requirements set on this project, is more appropriate in this case.

For comments on the proposal that the CAA introduces an equivalent safety finding concerned with degraded flight instrument external probe heating systems on a large transport aeroplane.

The UK CAA is consulting on an Equivalent Safety Finding that is applicable to CS-25 Large Aeroplanes.

This Equivalent Safety Finding provides the compensating factors to reach an equivalent level of safety to direct compliance with requirement CS 25.1326(b)(2) based on the detection of degraded anti-icing performance, through monitoring of the possible erroneous air data - potentially caused by a malfunction of a probe heating system - from one or more probes.

The Consultation Paper Equivalent Safety Finding UK.ESF.F.0001 Issue 1 provides the full detail of the identified issue, and the associated Equivalent Safety Finding.

We received 2 responses.
The first response highlighted the relevance of this proposed ESF to an ongoing investigation into partial probe heater failures on a large aeroplane type. In the referred partial failure, the probe tip could become iced up while the probe body remained ice free. Further, the method of probe heater failure detection during maintenance was not able to reliably detect this partial failure condition. The comment highlighted the relevance to the fundamental issue addressed by the ESF, and the need for the careful consideration and assessment of the scheduled maintenance actions for reliability.

The second response highlighted the need to address common mode faults and the potential for erroneous readings to occur from multiple primary air data systems. The commend further highlighted potential alleviations for common mode failures through system redundancy, dissimilarity, and robust comparator logic within the ADS.

We acknowledge the responses and thank the responders for their suggestion.
For response 1, the comment is not incorporated. Whilst we acknowledge the issue raised is a point of concern, our position is that this is currently covered by the Equivalent Safety Finding by incorporating as a compensation factor the use of DFCS monitoring system and its redundancies, as expressed in points 2.a.1, 2.a.2 and 2.a.3 of the ESF.

For response 2, the comment is not incorporated. The objective of this ESF is to identify compensation factors for the lack of strict compliance with 25.1326(b)(2) considering specific failure modes in which there is a degraded anti-icing performance of these sensors, as expressed in Section 2 of this ESF. To achieve this, the ESF identifies means where the aircraft systems trigger messages to the crew informing about the unreliability of these sensor, triggering suitable operational response in accordance with AFM procedures.

The concerns raised in the comment are part of the technical investigation that is carried out in the systems referred in this ESF in context of other points of CS 25 (eg. 25.1309).

For comments on the proposal that the CAA introduces a special condition to be used for the crashworthiness conditions of a conformal rear centre fuel tank installation on a large transport aeroplane.

The UK CAA is consulting on an Equivalent Safety Finding that is applicable to CS-25 Large Aeroplanes.

This Equivalent Safety Finding provides the compensating factors to reach an equivalent level of safety as an alternative to compliance with CS ACNS.E.TAWS.030 (b)(3), (b)(4), and (e) based on the availability of additional terrain information displayed on other windows of the PFD.

The Consultation Paper Equivalent Safety Finding UK.ESF.F.0002 Issue 1 provides the full detail of the identified issue, and the associated Equivalent Safety Finding.
You Said

We received 3 responses.
The first response concerned the need to ensure specific training in a realistic environment associated with the propose alternative approach. The response also comments that the TID is provided whenever required in both normal and reversionary modes.

The second response described two different scenarios that are perceived by the commenter as effective in implementing SVS and terrain information display. The first scenario refers to a SVS implementation that changes the colour of the terrain when it becomes a threat to the aircraft. The second scenario refers to a top 3D SVS view being supplemented by a bottom HSI view where terrain is represented in green, yellow, red.

The third response raised several comments around the implementation of the proposed mitigating factors. Dependent on the solution implemented, comments were raised including the potential for fore-shortening effects if the terrain information display compresses the SVS, the need for the pilot to integrate the information given on the two displays (SVS and TID), and the ability of the pilot to identify FPV when overlapping terrain.

We acknowledge the responses and thank the responders for their suggestions.
For the first response, the comment is not incorporated. The CAA consider that the training element is out of contest in the ESF, and that the subject of the reversionary mode of the "alerting display" is covered by the current compensating factor in Appendix A section 3.a and the required compliance with the other requirements of the CS ACNS Subpart E that remain applicable.
For the second response, the comment is not incorporated.

The scenarios described are both noted. In particular, the second scenario is considered to be covered within the compensating factors presented which require separate window providing a 2d view of the terrain compliant with CS ACNS.E.TAWS.030 (b)(3) and (b)(4).

For the third response, the comment is not incorporated. The CAA acknowledge the observations presented, however consider that the points raised apply at the design

Our proposal was to introduce a single entity for modernising the design of UK airspace – which we are calling the UK Airspace Design Service (UKADS). The consultation sought views on what the UKADS could do and how we might set it up.

We proposed two phases:

In the first phase, the initial operating model for the UKADS function would be established as soon as possible and tasked to NATS (En Route) plc (NERL) through a change to its air traffic services licence. The UKADS scope would initially be to modernise the complex airspace around London. Subject to the UKADS capability and capacity, the DfT and CAA might expand this scope in the future.

The second phase, running in parallel but necessarily on a longer timeframe, would be to establish the end-state operating model for the UKADS, responsible for all airspace change in the UK. This would be likely to require primary legislation. It would be conditional on the outcome of a review of the first phase to determine the extent to which UKADS has succeeded in delivering its objectives, and what policy, process or legislation changes would address any unfulfilled objectives. We did not make specific proposals for this second phase, other than outlining the broad concept, because it would be subject to further consultation in the future.

We also proposed to reform the funding of airspace change UK-wide by creating a new UK Airspace Design Charge. This new charge would:

- meet the efficient costs of NERL to provide the UKADS, and

- capitalise a new UK Airspace Design Support Fund that would cover relevant costs of airspace change by UK airports that are outside the scope of the UKADS.

We received 151 responses, of which 138 were submitted using this online consultation platform, 12 were submitted ‘off-line’ by email, and one by post.

There was general support for the UKADS concept from respondents to the consultation: 51% of responses said that it would, and 33% said it maybe would, improve delivery confidence in airspace modernisation (10% said it wouldn’t). There was also general agreement that the London TMA region should be the short-term scope of the UKADS: 47% of respondents agreed and 27% agreed, subject to additional considerations (16% disagreed).

24% of respondents agreed, and another 34% agreed subject to additional considerations, with NERL taking on the provision of UKADS in its first phase (20% disagreed). 20% of respondents agreed, and another 34% agreed with qualifications, to our proposals for reforming the funding of airspace change (13% said use another method).

For more information on responses to the consultation, including a more detailed breakdown of the figures above, please see our consultation response document, CAP 3106.

On 17 March 2025 the Government announced the go-ahead for the UKADS and the Support Fund. The consultation responses have helped us to shape the detail and we published a consultation response document, CAP 3106, on
2 June 2025.

Key points:

• NATS (En Route) plc (NERL) will be tasked with the UKADS.
• The UKADS will initially focus on modernising the complex airspace around London, including airspace change required for any Heathrow third runway.
• We are setting up a new UK Airspace Design Support Fund to help cover relevant costs of airspace modernisation in other parts of the UK.

It is proposed that these changes will be given effect through modifications to the NERL air traffic services licence, on which the Department for Transport and the CAA will each consult.

For more information on the outcome of the consultation and how we are taking your views into account, please see our consultation response document, CAP 3106 and the De Minimis Impact Assessment CAP 3106a. We have also published a Q&A supplement to the consultation response document and three policy papers. You can see these on our UKADS webpage where we will also post progress updates and other relevant information as a one-stop repository.
 

Next steps

Airspace modernisation will enable quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys by air. It will ensure that the UK’s airspace is fit for the future, enabling aircraft to fly more direct routes with optimised climb and descent profiles to and from energy-efficient cruising altitudes. This will benefit UK consumers through greater system capacity and better resilience to disruption. Crucially, it will help UK aviation achieve net zero greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050.

We are committed to establishing the initial UKADS operating model to be provided by NERL as soon as practicable. We will therefore be engaging regularly with NERL to ensure it can mobilise the UKADS by the end of 2025 and to work up transition arrangements.

By September 2025, the DfT and CAA will consult on a package of regulatory changes to make the process for airspace design decisions more proportionate while retaining a transparent, evidence-based process that involves impacted stakeholders. This package is likely to include the airspace change process
(CAP 1616) and masterplan (CAP 2156a), and the government’s Air Navigation Guidance and Air Navigation Directions.

The NERL licence modifications and the new UK Airspace Design Charge will require separate consultation and decisions in accordance with the statutory processes provided for in the Transport Act 2000. These include:

• a CAA consultation on initial proposals for modifications to the NERL licence and further detail on the funding model
• a CAA statutory consultation on NERL licence modifications and corresponding final decision.

For comments on the proposal that the CAA continues its existing policy to recognise certain EASA Form 1s as equivalent to CAA Form 1s in certain limited circumstances, namely for maintained parts released by the Original Equipment Manufacturer or authorised agent for use on aircraft falling within the scope of Part-ML, where a component cannot be repaired by an organisation holding a UK approval. Currently this is managed by CAA ORS9 Decision No. 24 that was issued in December 2022 with an expiry date of 31 December 2024. We proposed in the consultation to extend this policy until 31^st December 2029.

To achieve the policy objective the CAA proposed to amend the current end date within Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) to UK Regulation (EU) No. 1321/2014 (the UK Continuing Airworthiness Regulation), specifically in Part-145, and Part-ML to reflect the 2029 deadline. The amendments clarify that specified EASA Form 1s (only) are ‘equivalent documents’ as permitted by the terms of the regulation to which the AMC applies.

 

We received 31 responses.

We received strong support of (90%) for the CAA to continue its policy of recognising certain EASA Form 1s as equivalent to CAA Form 1s in certain limited circumstances.

We received significant support (77%) for the proposed wording of AMC1 ML.A.501(a)(ii) Classification and installation.

We received significant support (70%) for the proposed wording of AMC1 145.A.42(a)(i) Components.

We received comments suggesting that the new decision should be issued indefinitely. This is not considered a viable option as the UK would be unilaterally accepting parts from the EU without any sort of reciprocal arrangement. However, the CAA will review annually the need for the new decision and will continue encouragement for foreign organisations to obtain CAA approval. We will also seek to look at a more permanent solution for beyond December 2029.

We received several comments relating to widening the scope of the decision to include Part-CAMO/Part-M aircraft. This was not in the scope of the original decision and given the targeted requirement of the use of Article 4 (1A) within the UK Regulation (EU) No. 1321/2014, we are unable to extend this provision further outside the scope of Part-ML.

We received comments to clarify where the EASA approved organisation must be located. By means of a typographical correction made to the AMC to align with the original decision, we have clarified within the AMC that it must be an EASA approved organisation based within an EASA member state.

We have decided to issue a new decision following the policy set by the original Decision 24 and thereby amend the current end date to 31^st December 2029 within AMC to UK (EU) Regulation 1321/2014. The new decision will apply as follows:

• Provided that the component is not available from a CAA approved organisation, a maintenance organisation in a state with which the UK has a bilateral safety agreement, or an organisation based in a state with whose NAA the CAA has a working arrangement, components of Part-ML aircraft released on an EASA Form 1 by the component’s original equipment (or their approved agent) manufacturer based in an EASA member state may be fitted to a UK registered aircraft.

We asked for comments on our proposal to make changes to Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC), Guidance Material (GM), Certification Specifications (CS) and Guidance material (GM) for UK Reg (EU) No 139/2014 regarding the ICAO change to the reporting method of pavement bearing strength from Aircraft Classification Number (ACN) and Pavement Classification Number (PCN) to Aircraft Classification Rating (ACR) and Pavement Classification Rating (PCR).

The consultation for the amendments to Regulation UK (EU) 139/2014 that will also be included in CAP168 closed on the 25 October 2024, there were eight responses. 

Many of the responses  were in the form of questions which are addressed in the responses below. Generally, the proposed changes were accepted.

One key concern was the need for the extension of the PCR applicability date. Following the consultation comments the CAA took quick action to promulgate the PCR extension for both using aircraft and technical evaluations via SkyWise, therefore giving airports more time to plan and finance the required pavement evaluations to become compliant.

Consultation timing 
A comment was made relating to the timing of the consultation being too close to the applicability date.  The CAA recognise the PCR change timing is not ideal and was a result of several factors outside of its control which led to delays not least COVID lockdown and the recent general election both of which slowed down and paused regulatory development. This is a reason that an extension to the applicability date will be announced.

Airport category and complexities 
Comments were received regarding the use of PCR data at different category aerodromes  i.e. non- complex / complex aerodromes with a suggestion that the matrix is only applied to commercial aerodromes, however PCR applies to all licensed and certificated aerodromes with a hard runway operating aircraft over 5, 700kgs, there is no differentiation to the category or complexity of the aerodrome.

Extension to the PCR applicability date
There were several comments relating to the extension of the PCR applicability date. Four of the eight responders requested an extension to the applicable date.  

The CAA had already indicated that applicability date was going to be extended and would be notified after the consultation closed. The extension periods for both U and T compliance will be advised shortly and will likely exceed the suggested time frames suggested by responders providing adequate time to undertake the required evaluations.  
 
Capital costs 
One airport raised the capitol costs of the conversion to PCR T.  The CAA is aware of the costs and planning required to undertake a full technical survey in to meet the requirements for the technical declaration. This is the prime reason that an extension to the applicability date which will be announced, allowing aerodromes to plan for the required testing which also provides the option to spread the cost of the testing program over an extended period. The extension of the PCR applicability is in line with other  states which are also extending applicability deadlines. 

Lack of guidance for U evaluation
Lack  guidance  was mentioned particularly relating to the U method. The use of using aircraft and the ICAO software to perform a calculation for the heaviest aircraft was identified and promulgated as soon as possible once evaluation and training had been undertaken and methods verified at the ICAO Airport Pavement Expert Group by the CAA. 

The CAA provided a webinar on the use of the software packages for PCR calculation and also offered ongoing support on a one-to-one basis for airports with software demonstrations and guidance together with assistance with calculating U values. ICAO Doc 9157 Aerodrome Design Manual Chapter 3 is also a source of guidance CAP168 already contains guidance on PCR calculations which is suitable for both certificated and licensed aerodromes which was promulgated by SkyWise. 

Use of U evaluation until next pavement maintenance 
There were several comments made to the use of U until the next planned maintenance.  The use U is acceptable as long as plans are made to undertake the required technical assessment by the applicability extension deadline date.   Planned maintenance or rehabilitation is the ideal time to undertake technical evaluation depending on how the maintenance plan falls within the revised applicability dates.

ACN/PCN data can still be used until the T evaluation is completed by the deadline, the information will remain in the AIP until the PCR values are notified to AIS. An extension to the revised applicability will be notified, any further request to extend beyond the revised applicability date will be subject to discussion with the allocated aerodrome inspector.

Pressure plate testing may not provide adequate information for the pavement technical evaluation given the subbase requires evaluation via cores, DCP, and GPR surveys.

Training courses 
Regarding training a comment was made relating to training, ICAO training courses are available, the training available is overview and technical for engineers. 

Software suitability
There were comments regarding the suitability of the software packages currently available for PCR calculations.  The software packages do provide output data to perform the PCR calculation for T evaluations including CDF values and life expectancy based on design. Other states are developing software not least the UK which will become available in the near future. 

EMAS 
EMAS and use of existing arrestor beds consideration was highlighted, a question was raised regarding consideration for existing EMAS which are not identified in the proposed CS and if installed to what extent of the RESA can be substituted.  

The intent is to introduce a CS and standard to be met for new EMAS installations. The substitution of RESA is subject to safety assessment and EMAS design intent considering the operations at the aerodrome.  RESA reduction will only be considered for new EMAS installations given EMAS is an engineered solution and is very different from a soft arrester bed.  If current soft beds are employed these remain acceptable in their current form, however,  additional RESA reduction in this application will not be considered.  

There were no negative responses for the inclusion of the CS in 139/2014 and CAP168. 

AGLCS system design 
Comments were received relating to the change to the design of AGLCS and its required financial investment. Comment also referred to the text update to CS ADR-DSN.S.890 requesting if there is an expectation that existing approved AGLCS systems will need safety cases re-evaluated to meet additional requirements where they may present over the existing, or will this apply for new/amended installations?

Adjustments can be  undertaken when a change is made to a system  or its updated or replaced and in consultation with the aerodromes allocated ATM inspectors.

GRF 
There were no comments relating to the proposed amendments to GRF.However, this element will be removed from this task and added at a future date, this is due to the potential of further changes by ICAO prior to issue of the State letter which is now estimated as 2027. 

CS ADR-DSN.D.335
Comment received relating to the revision of CS ADR-DSN.D.335 being the inner transitional is less ‘demanding’ at 1:3 vs 1:7, it’s still tight for larger aircraft tails, concern was raised as this contradicts some of the taxiway separation and holding position distance tables which no longer fully protect against larger aircraft tails as mobile obstacles. 

The introduction of new OLS surfaces will help with the operational assessment and establishment will address these points. The new OLS surfaces will become applicable in 2030.  The required work to update AMC / GM and CAP168 will commence in 2025 with the aim for adoption well in advance of the applicability date, therefore mitigating the problem, any penetrations will always be subject to an aeronautical study.

AMC1 ADR.OPS.B.090
A comment was received relating to operation of higher code aircraft and impacts to existing permissions. 

If higher code aircraft when factored into the aircraft mix do not exceed CDF 1 the pavement life should be calculated  by the PCR software for the current and forecasted aircraft mix at the aerodrome. 

Overlays prior to the end of forecasted design life will alter the PCR and CDF at which point they should be recalculated. Should the traffic mix alter the PCR and CDF calculations the process should be repeated by using the PCR software.  

Current permissions are unlikely to be affected but the effect of pavement should be assessed if the higher code aircraft when evaluated in the aircraft mix causes the CDF to exceed CDF1 which is then an overload operation. 

Continuous overloading of the pavement will affect the overall pavement life, its planned maintenance and lead to early failure.  It is the responsibility of the aerodrome to effectively manage this element within the scope of the overload requirements and aerodrome pavement inspection and maintenance procedures. 

Following the consultation comments the CAA took quick action to promulgate the PCR extension for both using aircraft and technical evaluations via SkyWise, therefore giving airports more time to plan and finance the required pavement evaluations to become compliant.

The CAA does not envisage additional rule making  activity regarding the implementation of the change areas outlined in the consultation, the update will consist of AMC/ GM amending or adding to existing provisions.