We Asked, You Said, We Did

We asked industry and academia to apply to participate in three hydrogen working groups created as part of the Hydrogen Challenge:

• H2Wo(1) Hydrogen Propulsion Systems – hydrogen combustion, hydrogen electric and hydrogen fuel system.
• H2Wo(2) Hydrogen Aircraft Safety & Certification – standards as guidance, Special Conditions and Human Factors/Flight Ops.
• H2Wo(3) Aerodromes and Airports – infrastructure, fuelling/de-fuelling and airport safety

These will facilitate collaboration with industry and academia to improve understanding of hydrogen-related risks in aviation, identify gaps in regulations and policies, and propose new recommendations to develop net-zero regulations and policies.

We received a total of 117 applications to join the one or more of the three working groups.

All applicants were contacted and asked which groups they wanted to attend. Selected applicants will be sent invitations for the first meetings which we hope to hold in October 2024.

We ran a consultation, CAP2974G, from 13 March to 22 May 2024 asking the UK General Aviation (GA) community for their views on our proposed strategic direction for pilot licensing and training simplification - Gyroplanes.

The consultation covered the following themes:

• Differences training and whether to add these into the Air Navigation Order 2016 as requirements rather than suggested minimum hours.
• Crediting of theoretical knowledge (TK) and flight training towards gaining an NPPL microlight as previously allowed under CAP804.
• Relaxing the restricted Flight Instructor Gyroplane (FI(G)) supervision to also include the local area to allow some flexibility in allowing restricted FI(G) to be able to gain the experience to remove the restriction.
• Maintaining the privileges of the gyroplane rating and whether to align with the new suggestions in the Aeroplane consultation paper.
• ATO requirement for FIC and how this can be made more proportionate for FIC(G).
• Creating gyroplane specific TK examinations and moving them to the eExams system.

We received 20 responses to this consultation. All respondents answered the survey questions and some left detailed comments.

• Differences training: The vast majority agreed with the proposals to incorporate the differences training, currently in Standards Document 44 (SD44), into the Air Navigation Order 2016 as requirements.
• Crediting of TK and flight training towards gaining NPPL(M): Nearly all respondents agreed with both of these proposals with only 1 individual being undecided on the flight training proposal.
• Relaxing the supervision of restricted FI(G): 70% of respondents agreed with the new proposed wording to relax the supervision and include the local flying area.
• Maintaining privileges: Only 4 respondents had a view on this topic.
• ATO requirement for FIC: 50% of respondents agreed with our approach.
• Creating gyroplane TK and moving onto eExams platform: These proposals received mixed views from respondents.

We will be proceeding with the next phase of this project to develop and move forward with proposed changes:

• We will begin work on drafting the proposed amendments to the ANO, in co-operation with the Department for Transport. 
• We will begin work on updating Standards Document 44 to capture the changes.
• We will update the PPL(G) Air Law and Gyroplane Technical examination papers and reformat the NPPL(A) Microlight examination papers for gyroplanes. Once updated these will be sent to all Ground Examiners for Gyroplanes.
• We will commence a project to amend CAP1667, to align with the DTO requirements.

We have published our consultation response document, setting out these findings in more detail: CAP3032G

We ran a consultation, CAP2974F, from 13^th March 2024 to 22^nd May 2024 asking the UK General Aviation (GA) community for their views our proposed strategic direction in the second phase of the Licensing and Training Simplification project- Sailplanes.

The consultation covered the following themes:

• Adding the term ‘Gliding Club’ to the list of definitions in Article 2 of the Sailplane Regulations.
• Developing procedures and privileges to authorise student pilots who are following a training course to gain an SPL to exercise limited privileges without the supervision of an instructor, before they meet all the requirements that are necessary for the issue of an SPL.
• Propose changes to theoretical knowledge exams including the number of exams and the validity periods.
• Amend Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) for powered sailplanes to include partial engine failure.
• Develop a Basic Instructor privilege within SFCL similar to the current BGA Basic Instructor rating and make necessary amendments for aerobatic and self-launching for instructors.

We received 586 responses to this consultation. Most respondents answered the survey questions and a number also left additional comments. The consultation questions were worded in such a way to form a survey that could be quantitatively analysed. 

• We received significant support to add the term ‘Gliding Club’ to the list of definitions in Article 2 of the assimilated Sailplane Regulations UK (EU) 2018/1976, defining it as a club affiliated to the British Gliding Association (BGA), which is created with the aim of promoting aerial sport and leisure aviation.’
• We received significant support to develop procedures and privileges to authorise student pilots who are following a training course to gain a SPL to exercise limited privileges without the supervision of an instructor before they meet all the requirements that are necessary for the issue of an SPL.
• We received significant support to make changes to theoretical knowledge exams including the number of exams and the validity periods.
• We received significant support to amend Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) for powered sailplanes to include partial engine failure following an AAIB safety recommendation.
• We received significant support to develop a Basic Instructor privilege within SFCL similar to the current BGA Basic Instructor rating.

We received significant support to make necessary changes to amend the privileges of the Flight Instructor to remove the requirement for the Flight Instruction to hold advanced aerobatic privileges if instructing for basic aerobatic privileges as well as amending the privileges of the Flight Instructor to include self-launch in the launching methods.

We will be proceeding with the next phase of this project to develop and move forward with proposed changes.

• We will begin work on drafting the proposed amendments to the Sailplane Regulations, in co-operation with the Department for Transport.
• We are working towards a legislative slot in Spring 2025.
• We will also liaise with internal colleagues to ensure that our systems, internal instructions documents and all staff are ready for the implementation of these changes.

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, where necessary, in late 2024 or early 2025.

We have published our consultation response document, setting out these findings in more detail: CAP3032F

We ran a consultation, CAP2974B, from 13 March to 22 May 2024 asking the UK General Aviation (GA) community for their views on our proposed strategic direction for pilot licensing and training simplification - Balloons.

The consultation covered the following themes:

• Next steps and embedding the reforms for Part-BFCL.
• Licensing for private ballooning.
• Commercial balloon licensing.
• Instructor and Examiner requirements.

Theoretical knowledge changes.

We received 128 responses to this consultation. Most respondents answered all survey questions and a number of those also left detailed comments. There were a small number of respondents that did not answer a large proportion of the questions.

• Next steps and embedding Part-BFCL: We received a large number of individual comments in response to our 3 requests for input. Details of these and our decisions can be found in the Consultation Response Document (CRD)
• Licensing for Private ballooning: Respondents were largely in favour of the majority of proposals relating to Private ballooning, with the exception of the recency requirement and frequency of flight training with a Flight Instructor balloon (FI(B))
• Commercial balloon licensing: We received majority support for proposals regarding pre-requisite hours for commercial ballooning, minimum hours requirement when moving from one envelope to the next, mandatory ground school, making proficiency checks mandatory every 2 years and mandatory refresher training every 5 years. There was also support for having 2 separate commercial ratings.
• Instructor and Examiner requirements: Respondents indicated strong support for all proposals relating to instructor and examiner licensing. Details of which can be found in the CRD.
• Theoretical knowledge changes: Again, there was strong support to all proposed changes to theoretical knowledge examinations and their validity periods.

• We will be proceeding with the next phase of this project to develop and move forward with proposed changes.
• We will now begin work on drafting the necessary documents, required by the Department for Transport (DfT), to implement changes to the ANO and Part-BFCL.
• We are working towards a legislative slot in Spring 2025.
• We will also liaise with internal colleagues to ensure that our systems, internal instructions documents and all staff are ready for the implementation of these changes.
• Due to the volume of work and resource constraints in the legislative programme, some areas of policy relating to balloons will not be progressed until 2026. These include changes relating to:
  • Theoretical knowledge examinations.

We have published our consultation response document, setting out these findings in more detail: CAP3032B

We ran a consultation, CAP2974E, from 13 March to 22 May 2024 asking the UK General Aviation (GA) community for their views on our proposed strategic direction for pilot licensing and training simplification - Helicopters.

The consultation covered the following themes:

• Combined licence documents for both the sub-ICAO and ICAO compliant private helicopter licences.
• Proposed amendments to theoretical knowledge (TK) examinations including number of exams and validity periods as well as the use of mobile devices for planning.
• Flight instructor theoretical knowledge and ways of improving the requirements.
• Other issues within the helicopter category that we may not have considered.

We received 37 responses to this consultation. All respondents answered the survey questions and some left detailed comments. There was however 1 respondent who did not answer the TK question.

• Combined licence documents: We received significant support for both proposals to issue a combined licence document for both ICAO compliant and sub-ICAO helicopter licences.
• Amendments to TK:
  • Number of exams: The most popular suggestion was to combine exams into 7 rather than the current 9 however there was significant support to keep the current requirements of 9 examinations.
  • Use of mobile devices: We received overwhelming support to use mobile devices in planning training and also navigation exercises.
  • Validity periods: 62% of respondents agreed that we should amend the validity period of exams to 36 months rather than the current 24 month validity.
• Flight Instructor TK: We received 19 comments to this request for suggestions. A selection of them can be found in the consultation response document (CRD).
• Other issues: 21 respondents left comments on this section. A selection can be found in the CRD.

• We will be proceeding with the next phase of this project to develop and move forward with proposed changes.
• We will now begin work on drafting the necessary documents, required by the Department for Transport (DfT), to implement changes to the ANO and Part-FCL.
• We are working towards a legislative slot in Spring 2025.
• We will also liaise with internal colleagues to ensure that our systems, internal instructions documents and all staff are ready for the implementation of these changes.
• Due to the volume of work and resource constraints in the legislative programme, some areas of policy relating to helicopters will not be progressed until 2026. These include changes relating to:
  • Theoretical knowledge examinations

We have published our consultation response document, setting out these findings in more detail: CAP3032E

We ran a consultation, CAP2974A, from 13 March to 22 May 2024 asking the UK General Aviation (GA) community for their views on our proposed strategic direction for pilot licensing and training simplification – Aeroplanes.

The consultation covered the following themes:

• Revising the PPL(A) qualifying experience in line with ICAO Annex 1
• Feedback on the future class rating system
• Options for the future sub-ICAO aeroplane licence
• Review of class rating revalidation requirements
• Theoretical knowledge changes
• Other subjects including the Instrument Rating, sailplane and aerobatic ratings, and the use of non-Part 21 aircraft.

We received 640 responses to this consultation. Most respondents answered all survey questions and a number of those also left detailed comments. There were a small number of respondents that did not answer a large proportion of the questions.

• The PPL(A) qualifying experience: We received strong support for the proposed changes, including making the PPL qualifying experience more flexible and allowing credit from flight time previously gained on microlights.
• Class rating system: Most respondents were in favour of examining this area further.
• Sub-ICAO aeroplane licence: Most favoured adopting a single sub-ICAO licence for the UK.
• Class rating revalidation: Most favoured retaining a flight experience element for the revalidation of the SEP, TMG and microlight class ratings, and alignment of the requirements across all three ratings.
• Theoretical knowledge: We received feedback on the number of PPL exams, and support for our changes to exam pass validity periods.
• Other subjects: We received support for all our proposals.

• We will be proceeding with the next phase of this project to develop and move forward with the proposed changes.
• We will now begin work on drafting the necessary documents, required by the Department for Transport (DfT), to implement changes to the UK Aircrew Regulation and the Air Navigation Order.
• We are working towards a legislative slot in Spring 2025.
• We will also liaise with internal colleagues to ensure that our systems, internal instructions documents and all staff are ready for the implementation of these changes.
• Due to the volume of work and resource constraints in the legislative programme, some areas of policy will not be progressed until 2025, with legislation likely in 2026. These include changes relating to:
  • Theoretical knowledge;
  • Class rating system;
  • Instrument rating and IMC rating.
• We have published our consultation response document, setting out these findings in more detail: CAP 3032A

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, where necessary, in late 2024 or early 2025.

For comments on the proposals for new and amended Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) in UK Regulation (EU) 965/2012 relating to Locations of Aircraft in Distress – Aeroplanes.

The implementing rule CAT.GEN.MPA.210 Location of Aircraft in Distress – Aeroplanes was introduce in Statutory Instrument (SI) 2022 No.1235. However, there was no supporting AMC or GM included at that time and AMC 1 CAT.GEN.MPA.210 and GM1 and GM 2 CAT.GEN.MPA.210 were proposed.

In addition, the following amendments to AMC/GM were also proposed:

• AMC and GM for CAT.IDE.A and H.280 Emergency locator transmitter (ELT) and AMC2 CAT.IDE.A.285 and AMC1 CAT.IDE.H.300(b)(3) & CAT.IDE.H.305(b) Flight over water & Survival equipment provide more information on the specific requirements of distress tracking ELT (ELT(DT))s.
• AMC and GM for SPA.HOFO.145 Flight Data Monitoring has been updated to provide details of industry good practice.
• AMC2 NCC.IDE.A.215 Emergency locator transmitter (ELT) has been amended to reference AMC2 CAT.IDE.A and H.280 for details of the applicable types of ELTs and AMC2 CAT.IDE.A, H.280 AMC2 SPO.IDE.A.190  on crash survivability and homing-signal capability applicability.
• AMC2 NCO.IDE.A.170 and  AMC2 SPO.IDE.H.190 Emergency locator transmitter (ELT) is amended to enable an ELD(AD) to be either a stand-alone beacon or an inseparable part of a deployable recorder.

Furthermore,  additional GM were included regarding Global Report Formatting for reporting runway conditions that were inadvertently missed in a previous revision to UK Regulation 965/2012.

We received no comments on the CAA proposals during the consultation.

Since the consultation, ICAO published State letter (AN 11/1.1.29-24/16) dated 24 June 2024. This letter informed states that the location of an aircraft in distress repository (LADR) is now operational. The LADR is a critical part of the Global Aeronautical Distress and Safety System (GADSS), providing the means to store and make available all information related to the position of an aircraft in distress, as described in Annex 6 — Operation of Aircraft, Part I — International Commercial Air Transport — Aeroplanes, 6.18. CAT.OP.MPA.210 complies with this ICAO standard.

In addition, ICAO required operators to register a focal point account with OPS Control/LADR. As a result, we have included an additional GM3 CAT.OP.MPA.210 to provide the necessary information for operators.

The proposed changes to the AMC/GM to UK (EU) Regulation 965/2012 (the UK Air Operations Regulation) are necessary as they provide enhanced supporting information for the following areas:

• Definitions
• Aircraft tracking system – aeroplanes,
• Location of an Aircraft in Distress - aeroplanes,
• Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT),
• Flight over water & survival equipment helicopters,
• Life rafts, survival ELTs, and survival equipment on extended overwater flights,
• Flight Data Monitoring (FDM) Programme

The CAA therefore intends to publish these changes through the Official Records Series 4 process.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) consulted on a proposed policy position for the recognition and implementation of Atypical Air Environments (AAEs).

We received a total of 239 responses from across the aviation community including UAS commercial and recreational users, military, emergency services, Air Navigation Service Providers, GA, other formal aviation related bodies and organisations as well as the general public.

We published a Consultation Reply, that includes details of the responses and our Unmanned Aircraft Operations in an Atypical Air Environment: Policy Concept.

The purpose of this public call for input engagement, on improving the degree of alignment between the UK Flight Information Services and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Flight Information Service (FIS) provisions in the UK, was to support the implementation of the Airspace Modernisation Strategy (AMS). We have an obligation to review and optimise our degree of alignment with ICAO provisions.  That allows us to demonstrate our air traffic services provision is complementary to that of our neighbouring states, thereby enhancing overall flight safety and providing an adaptable ‘visual flight rules (VFR) or instrument flight rules (IFR)’ solution to service recipients in classes E and G airspace. 

In this ‘Call for Input’ engagement we sought stakeholder views to inform our development of a proposal and asked a series of follow-up questions linked to the proposal and the alignment, content and provision of air traffic services in the UK.  We provided the opportunity for stakeholders to offer their views and opinions on this subject and to provide narrative answers accordingly.  In addition, we offered stakeholders a chance to submit written proposals and counter-proposals as well as a chance to discuss the proposal with CAA staff.

We received 187 responses in total.  In broad terms, respondents were 60% service recipient (pilot/aircraft operator); 40% service provider (ANSP, ATCO, FISO, other).  Most respondents, 82%, were offering personal views, the remaining 18% of respondents were submitting on behalf of an organisation.  Overall, 88% of respondents supported the intent of the proposal; some respondents proceeded to elaborate why they had answered yes/no and provided reasons and caveats to their responses.

There were some useful and varied opinions from the full range of stakeholders, which supports our assertion that the UK does indeed have a complex and nuanced FIS position which is at odds with other states.

The opinions offered were dependent upon stakeholder’s own task(s) and output(s) as well as location and experience (this applies especially overseas, and for those advocating improvement to the delivery of UK Flight Information Services by adopting a hybrid methodology taking the best elements of the French, US and, in particular, the German system).

Of those respondents familiar with CAP 774 (UK Flight Information Services), and who receive/provide UK Flight Information Services in accordance with it, 62% felt it meets their operating requirements and is currently fit for purpose.  In addition, 73% of respondents felt that the current edition of CAP 774 was easy to assimilate whereas 27% did not.

Of those CAP 774 services, respondents were familiar with the four air traffic services in descending order: Basic Service, Traffic Service, Deconfliction Service then Procedural Service.

The majority of respondents, 66%, answered that all elements of CAP 774 should be reviewed.

The preponderance of respondents answered that, in descending order, Deconfliction advice; Vectors; Level Allocation; and Sequencing should be considered for inclusion as provisions of future UK Flight Information Services.

In addition, 70% of respondents stated that elements of ICAO Doc 4444 PANS-ATM should be better aligned with, or emphasised, within the future UK Flight Information Services.

Similarly, 74% of respondents stated that the CAA should simplify the operational delivery of UK Flight Information Services, many of the respondents offered opinions as to how this might be achieved.

83% of respondents suggested that the CAA should use technology to improve the delivery of UK Flight Information Services, with many respondents offering opinions on how this might be achieved.

89% of respondents thought it is important to retain a verbal agreement, between ATS provider and recipient, stating the type of service an aircraft is in receipt of.

There were lots of comments about commensurate airspace requirements to balance any potential future changes to UK Flight Information Services where their current application is used in risk mitigation.  In addition, respondents provided opinions and comments upon Lower Airspace (Radar) Services ranging from current provision to how it might be provided in the future.

It is important to the CAA that everyone has an opportunity to voice their opinion on matters that could affect them. For this reason, we asked for comments on this proposed change process.  We welcomed comments from every sector of the community. This includes the general public, government agencies and all sectors of the aviation industry, whether as an aviator, aviation consumer and/or provider of related products and services.

So, what next?  We will conduct deeper analysis on the responses, additionally, here is our engagement response document (CAP 3007) which contains some data analysis and excerpts from stakeholder responses for broader consumption.  We have already commenced the safety assurance process to make sure any future changes are delivered safely.  We shall then develop technical solutions and options, prior to a subsequent full stakeholder consultation.  Thereafter, once an option is agreed upon, we shall need to work on aviation-wide training, implementation, deployment, and a post implementation review.

Lastly, we are very mindful of the need for synchronicity.  The AMS offers a number of future changes and improvements, and the alignment of UK Flight Information Services with ICAO FIS is but one of them; we very much acknowledge the ability and capacity of all stakeholders to absorb these changes and will continue to proactively engage to better understand these challenges.

We asked for feedback from the General Aviation (GA) community on the challenges facing pilots in obtaining an active carbon monoxide (CO) detector, the importance of protecting passengers from CO, the role that maintenance plays in combatting CO, and whether active CO detectors ought to be mandatory for some operations.

CAP 2975 was published in February 2024 and was consulted on over a four-week period. The consultation included nine specific technical questions as well as an opportunity for respondents to provide free-text comments.

We received a total of 271 separate responses to the consultation. The Comment Response Document (CAP 3024) provides a summary of the responses received and the decisions taken as a result.

Based on the findings from this consultation and the extensive work done in this area over the last four years, the CAA will be issuing a directive requiring an active CO detector to be present in specified piston engine aircraft operations. The requirement will follow closely the proposal set out in CAP 2975, but will be modified to take into account the comments received in the consultation.

The CAA will not, at this time, introduce mandatory CO concentration checks in piston engine aircraft maintenance programmes beyond what is already specified by aircraft manufacturers and UK Reg (EU) No.1321/2014 Annex Vb (Part-ML), Minimum Inspection Programme (MIP).

The CAA will publish additional guidance on selecting an appropriate active CO detector, where and how to securely position devices in aircraft, how to respond to alerts, as well as guidance on exposure levels and thresholds for alarms.

We asked for feedback on the CAA’s view on Handling Rules for VTOL Aircraft Using Battery Power for Propulsion.

We received a total of 16 responses. Eight respondents have disagreed or expressed concern with our proposal to not allow recharging of batteries used for propulsion with passengers embarking, on board or disembarking. Some of the same respondents felt it is the operators that should decide if recharging with passengers onboard is appropriate, with manufacturers’ input.

Multiple respondents noted the proposal would have a negative impact on the business model of VTOL operators by resulting in longer turnarounds and ground handling times, risking the viability of the industry.

One respondent explicitly was in favour of equating swapping out of batteries to maintenance.

Two respondents stressed that approach to this issue should be risk-based, not prescriptive, to account for design, procedural, and ground mitigations that will be in place.

Two respondents asked for more specifics on firefighting and rescue standards and regulations, including which and how much of substance to use when putting out lithium-ion battery fires, and standardised firefighting techniques for this type of fire.

We have considered the comments submitted in response to the call for feedback on the proposed approach to Handling Rules for VTOL Aircraft Using Battery Power for Propulsion.

The CAA is committed to enabling new aviation business models in the UK, subject to appropriate levels of safety being maintained. The CAA’s approach to regulating these new business models remains risk and evidence based.  Due to the novelty of VTOL aircraft and their infrastructure we consider that there is insufficient data to support the use of some practices when handling batteries used for propulsion.

In its statement the CAA proposed that batteries used by VTOL for propulsion should not be recharged with passengers on board. We consider that recharging lithium-ion batteries with passengers on board a VTOL aircraft would be analogous to refuelling using avgas and wide-cut fuel with passengers on board.

Both avgas and wide-cut fuel are difficult to handle due to the amounts of explosive vapours that they generate. If a fire was to occur, it would result in high risk to passengers and likely damage the aircraft. Due to these risks, refuelling using these fuels with people on board is not permitted.

While a lithium-ion battery thermal runaway event is a low probability event, if it did occur, could result in a very powerful and fast-spreading fire and the outcome of that fire could be more significant compared to conventional fuels, such as wider area of damage and toxic byproducts. Academic research suggests that even if fire is not present, a lithium-ion battery experiencing a thermal runaway can generate large amounts of toxic fumes. This can have negative health consequences and inhibit efforts to evacuate passengers.

At times, the process of thermal runaway could last days. Even during recharging, lithium-ion batteries can create gasses that are toxic and flammable by nature. As the capacity of lithium-ion batteries grows, so will the potential damage that can be caused.

Lithium-ion batteries are therefore currently being treated as high risk. We will review our approach as more data is made available to us about the technologies being used and the mitigation methods applied to address the risks to persons and property on the ground.

We acknowledge that technological and procedural measures can go a long way to mitigate risks associated with recharging batteries used for propulsion. The CAA will therefore consider potential mitigations, such as a proposal by respondents to allow development of operating procedures by the OEMs and operators, but subject them to CAA review and approval. This statement will be reviewed to account for technological progress in energy storage where new types of batteries may have a lower risk profile compared to lithium-ion batteries.

We are aware of the challenges posed by lithium-ion batteries in VTOL aircraft, especially in the context of Rescue and Fire Fighting Services and are actively engaged in EUROCAE work on this topic. Future guidance for vertiports will include RFFS criteria and additional guidance will be released in due course.

The CAA will further clarify the statement to include the need for a qualified individual to attend the entire process of recharging unless it can be demonstrated that a certified system or appropriate procedure can be used to monitor the process remotely without diminishing safety levels.

Regarding possible divergence from other regulators, while we do learn from outputs of other regulators, we are firmly focused on introducing regulations that are appropriate for the UK environment. We will seek to remain aligned with our international partners, insofar as their approach is suitable for the UK environment.

We asked for feedback on the proposal to prohibit instrument flight rules (IFR) flights to be undertaken at supersonic and hypersonic speeds over land (to bring the rules into line with those for visual flight rules (VFR) flights) and to prohibit VFR flights to be undertaken at hypersonic speeds over land without express permission from the CAA.

We received 42 responses in total. Overall, there was support for the proposals which are designed to mitigate the environmental effects on the ground from ‘faster than sound flight.’

The principal areas where respondents considered that there may be negative impact were in efficiency and financial impacts. The concerns centred around aircraft that are designed to be more efficient at supersonic or hypersonic speeds having to fly subsonic over land, therefore impacting on their efficiency and fuel utilisation, potentially leading to greater cost.

A couple of respondents believed there would be a negative impact to safety due to the requirement for these aircraft to “operate in sub optimal flight regimes which could compromise their handling characteristics and thus reduce safety.”  Additionally, another suggested that as “supersonic aircraft are designed to cover long distances at high speed. If they have to reduce to subsonic speed every time they pass over land this manoeuvre, perhaps necessitation [sic] large altitude changes, may be hazardous and would reduce fuel reserves.”

It is important to highlight that it is not the intent for a prohibition of supersonic and hypersonic flight to remain in place for the long term. It is intended to mitigate the environmental effects of ‘faster than sound’ flight and provide protection to those on the ground whilst aircraft are developed that have less of an environmental impact from noise. Moreover, aircraft capable of supersonic and hypersonic speeds will be required to reduce speed at some point during their flight to enable a return to an appropriate approach and landing speed, and their handling characteristics will facilitate this in a safe manner.

One respondent believed that supersonic flight would benefit the air traffic management (ATM) network by getting aircraft to their destination faster, whilst another believed that the additional workload for ATM created by dealing with supersonic flight would offset any benefits of their faster flights. 

Where respondents considered there was a negative impact, this was mainly due to concerns over the inability of developers to conduct flights for research and development (R&D) purposes, especially when those flights were looking to reduce the noise impact of faster than sound flight.  Additionally, there were several concerns over the financial impact should developers of supersonic aircraft look to move away from the UK due to limits being placed on their trial flights.

However, the proposal specifically allows for R&D flights to continue through the power afforded to the competent authority to authorise such flights, whilst still ensuring the protection of people on the ground. It is intended that the proposal to prohibit ‘faster than sound’ flights over land is an interim measure which provides the flexibility to support R&D and the subsequent certification of ‘low-boom’ aircraft.

It is likely that future ‘low-boom’ aircraft will have a far lower noise profile than earlier generations of ‘faster than sound’ aircraft, and thus be much less noticeable to people on the ground. Consequently, they will not need to be limited in the same way as which will allow us to review these requirements accordingly.
 

To facilitate the ongoing development of new aircraft types capable of supersonic and hypersonic speeds, whilst taking into account the impact on citizens on the ground from noise impacts, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) will proceed with the task of developing rules which limit when and where aircraft can fly at speeds ‘faster than sound.’

These rules will not affect transonic IFR flight and, where there is a requirement for ‘faster than sound’ flight over land for R&D purposes, the CAA will have power to authorise these where appropriate.

As technology advances and the impacts of ‘faster than sound’ flight on the ground diminish, these rules can be revised to ensure innovative technologies achieve their full potential both in terms of speed and efficiency.
 

We asked for feedback on the CAA’s position on the adoption of 21 Special Conditions and 2 Means of Compliance, published by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) after the United Kingdom left the European Aviation regulatory system.

We received 5 responses in total. All respondents agreed with the CAA approach to adopt the Special Conditions and Means of Compliance listed in the consultation. There were no comments on the technical content of the Special Conditions or Means of Compliance.

We acknowledge that all respondents supported this proposal, however we are also aware of the limited number of responses. The Special Conditions and Means of Compliance will be adopted and published on the CAA website in due course.

Email address updated in November 2024 to cyber@caa.co.uk . 

Between 30 Oct 2023 and 26 Jan 2024, we asked you to comment and form opinions on the proposed UK ISMS regulation which aims to improve cyber resilience in respect of aviation safety. The regulation, firmly based on EASA’s Part-IS, was shared in this form to allow it to be developed, improved, and ensure alignment with the UK aviation market and regulatory structure.

We received 29 responses, made up of a combination of organisations, individuals, and UK aviation industry groups. These responses represent a significant proportion of the industry covering all of the  regulatory areas within the proposed scope of the regulation.

In addition to the core UK ISMS regulation, the consultation requested comments on the associated AMC and GM (Acceptable Mean of Compliance and Guidance Material) which is also based on those documents published by EASA to be used in conjunction with Part-IS.

Responses reflected the variety of challenges faced by each separate industry area which led to some common themes and a wide range of perspectives. One key theme highlighted concerns about over-regulation and how well the requirements will operate in conjunction with existing safety and security regulations. 

Within this, organisations cited the international nature of the industry with many organisations working across borders, and concerns were expressed about how UK ISMS might duplicate similar regulations and requirements outside of the UK, not least for those organisations who are already working towards compliance with Part-IS. 

Some organisations have given us a view of the potential difficulties that would be faced in meeting changes that would impact existing supplier contracts. Noting, reducing the risks around the resilience and security of the supply chain is a priority for all. 

Another key concern raised, was on the proposals around reporting requirements. It was stated that an overly burdensome process for reporting to the regulatory authorities could prevent an organisation from focussing on responding and managing a serious incident, and that opportunities exist within current practices under the current MOR requirements in safety regulation.

Feedback received on the AMC/GM was very much interlinked with the comments on policy and principles within the regulation text, but it was very clear that this document is incredibly important to all organisations and high-quality guidance is needed to support effective implementation and operation of an ISMS. 

Overall, the consultation gave a varied outcome, however it revealed a common want to implement proportionate measures to combat the risks associated to cyber security. 

Analysis of the responses provided to this consultation this will feed directly into our process for preparing the drafting and transposition documents of the rule making process. It is also forming the basis for reflection within our internal working groups across all the CAA. 

Our next steps will be to provide our formal opinion and instruction document to the Department for Transport, in order to commence with this regulatory change.

Work with wider government departments and regulatory bodies on how to fulfil overall ambitions of the proposed regulation, and to align with government ambitions to increase cyber resilience across all sectors.

We will continue to engage with industry stakeholders on the key topics that have been raised in this consultation. 

Work on further detailed supporting and guidance material to supplement the regulation.  

The CAA is committed to transparency and will expand this engagement in due course with the potential for further public consultation.

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 2024 display season. 

We compiled a draft of CAP 1724 Edition 6 and consulted on it over four working weeks from 20 December 2023 to 19 January 2024. 

We received a total of 35 unique comments to the draft CAP 1724 from 10 respondents.  

Of all the comments, 19 clearly conveyed some sort of change. Of these, 15 comments were textual in nature, suggesting revised wording or highlighting minor drafting points; the remaining 4 comments were more substantive, calling for some sort of change of the underlying policy. 

We accepted 10 of all the comments suggesting some sort of change (53%). 

Of the 15 textual comments received, we accepted 9. Most of these comprised of rewording content for clarification, and we have tried to take a balanced view on what would be helpful. Of the 6 we elected not to implement, some were not specific enough to warrant a change, some suggested changes that were made elsewhere and one requested a change that had already been implemented.

Regarding the 4 more substantive comments we received, we implemented 1. Of those we elected not to implement, one was covered already in this document and it was considered that the remaining comments might have further unintended consequences.

We have produced a final version of CAP 1724 Edition 6 which was published on February 1st 2024. 

We asked for comments on our proposals for revisions to the existing CAA Charges Schemes, due to take effect from 1 April 2024.

We received 128 submissions from 37 respondents.

Full details have been published in our consultation response document.

The consultation ran between 9 November 2023 and 4 January 2024.

We received 988 unique formal responses.

We published our consultation response document for the General Aviation Pilot Medical Declaration review Phase 2 consultation.

More information on the PMD project is available on the CAA website.

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 2024 display season. 

We compiled a draft of CAP 403 Edition 21 and consulted on it over four working weeks from 27 November 2023 to 22 December 2023. 

We received a total of 32 unique comments to the draft CAP 403 from 12 respondents.  

Of all the comments, 26 clearly conveyed some sort of change. Of these, 20 comments were textual in nature, suggesting revised wording or highlighting minor drafting points.

Many of these comments were duplicated between respondents; and the other 6 comments were more substantive, calling for some sort of change of the underlying policy. 

We accepted 16 of all the comments suggesting some sort of change (62%). 

Of the 20 textual comments received, we accepted 15. Most of these comprised of rewording content for clarification, and we have tried to take a balanced view on what would be helpful. Of the 5 we elected not to implement, some were not specific enough to warrant a change, some suggested changes that were made elsewhere and it was considered that the remainder might have further unintended consequences.

Regarding the 6 more substantive comments we received, we implemented 1. Of those we elected not to implement, some were beyond the scope of CAP403, others were covered adequately either in this document or elsewhere, and it was considered that the remaining comment might have further unintended consequences.

We have produced a final version of CAP 403 Edition 21 which was published on February 1st 2024. 

This consultation document (CAP2601) concentrated solely on the advertising element of the proposed changes to the cost sharing rules. As our proposals on advertising were created as a result of responses received during our first consultation and differed significantly from the original proposal, the public had not been offered the opportunity to comment on the changes we suggested.

Furthermore, since we published our initial proposals, further proposals have been suggested as part of concurrent CAA projects looking at GA licencing and Pilot Medical Declarations (PMD).

We therefore decided to provide the GA community with this additional opportunity to input their views on the advertising of cost sharing flights through this additional consultation before the policy is finalised.

We received 1817 individual responses to our consultation questions, with 575 additional comments. The results are summarised below:

Q1: Do you currently or have you ever advertised a cost sharing flight online?

• Yes 11.72 %
• No 83.32 %
• Prefer not to say / not answered 4.95 %

Q2: Do you agree that the advertising element of the current cost sharing regulations should be reviewed and amended?

• Yes 21.19 %
• No 77.22 %
• Prefer not to say / not answered 1.60 %

Q3: Prior to the UK joining EASA, the advertising of a cost sharing flight was prohibited outside of a flying club environment. Would you support a return to those requirements regarding the advertising of cost sharing flights?

This required that: "no information has been published or advertised before the commencement of the flight other than, in the case of an aircraft operated by a flying club, advertising wholly within the premises of such a flying club in which case all the persons carried on such a flight who are aged 18 years or over must be members of that flying club". 

• Yes    13.65 %
• No    85.25 %
• Prefer not to say / not answered    1.10 %

Q4: In relation to the proposed amendments: "Cost sharing flights may be advertised. The advertisement must be placed by the pilot intending to operate the flight and it must relate to a specific flight that the pilot intends to take place, regardless of whether passengers are available for carriage. The advertisement must include the start and end locations, as well as the dates when the pilot intends to conduct the flight." To what extent do you agree that this proposed amendment is clear and easy to follow?

• Strongly agree 14.64 %
• Agree 9.74 %
• Neither agree nor disagree 4.51 %
• Disagree 8.37 %
• Strongly disagree 62.74 %
• Not answered 0 %

Q5: In relation to the below proposed amendments: "Cost sharing flights may be advertised. The advertisement must be placed by the pilot intending to operate the flight and it must relate to a specific flight that the pilot intends to take place, regardless of whether passengers are available for carriage. The advertisement must include the start and end locations, as well as the dates when the pilot intends to conduct the flight." To what extent do you agree that this proposed amendment is appropriate?

• Strongly agree 13.48 %
• Agree 8.31 %
• Neither agree nor disagree 3.25 %
• Disagree 8.37 %
• Strongly disagree 66.59 %
• Not answered 0 %

Q6: Do you believe that a pilot should have to include any of the following information in their advertisement to ensure passengers are fully aware of a pilot’s credentials before booking to join a cost sharing flight? (Please select all that apply)

• Licence type held (i.e. PPL) 87.62 %
• Medical held (i.e. Class 2, PMD) 79.09 %
• Flying experience 85.20 %
• Pilot recency 75.95 %
• None of the above 6.71 %
• No opinion / don’t know / not answered 3.74 %

Of the 575 additional comments received, all were analysed, and some main themes were identified. These included:

• The proposed amendment to advertising goes against the assumed original intent of cost sharing (i.e. hour building, maintaining currency, introducing more people to GA, allows for cheaper flying costs)
• There needs to be more flexibility in the advertising of cost sharing flights
• There needs to be better monitoring of cost sharing flights by the CAA
• Cost sharing flights should not be available online / to the general public
• Pilots / third parties should not be able to make a profit for cost sharing flights
• Cost sharing flights are detrimental to commercial organisations 

We have concluded the analysis of all responses received and have taken into account stakeholder feedback on this topic. We are grateful for the submissions received and acknowledge that the majority of stakeholders who responded are against our proposed changes to the advertising element of the cost sharing regulations. 

With that in mind, and after having completed further internal work to review the safety concerns relating to cost sharing flights, we have decided to revise our final policy position and will be providing our formal opinion to the Department of Transport (DfT) shortly. This formal opinion will include all other changes confirmed in CAP 2391 which we previously consulted on. 

With regards to the advertising of cost sharing flights, our proposed changes to the regulation will be as follows, (please note the below is not the final regulation wording, the DfT are responsible for the final wording of the regulation):  
Cost sharing flights may be advertised. The advertisement must be placed by the pilot intending to operate the flight and must include the start and end locations, the date when the pilot is available to conduct the flight, and any other information prescribed by the CAA.

We will also publish Guidance Material (GM), CAP documents, Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC)  and if applicable Alternative Means of Compliance (AltMoC) which will provide pilots and the public with further information about cost sharing flights including, but not limited to, that it is understood that pilots may choose to change the advertised destination at any point for any reason such as weather etc but passengers should not be permitted to dictate the destination of the cost sharing flight in the manner of someone chartering an aircraft. 

Taking into account the stakeholder feedback received, we understand that cost sharing flights need to have a certain amount of flexibility and therefore we feel that this revised wording allows for that whilst still ensuring that the pilot is in full control of the destination and date/time of the flight.

Our main objectives when reviewing the existing cost sharing regulations were to improve the regulation and guidance to ensure potential passengers better understand the type of flight and risks involved, and to help pilots better understand the regulation. We believe that we have achieved these objectives with the changes we are proposing to introduce, and therefore accept that allowing some flexibility in the advertising of cost sharing flights would not significantly impact the safety of such flights.

During the consultation we asked the community whether any additional information relating to the pilot’s credentials such as licence, medical held etc, should be included in any advertisement of a cost sharing flight. We are still reviewing this element of the proposal at this time. 

The internal working group are considering whether this information would be adequately understood by members of the public and a decision on what should be included will be made in due course. Therefore, we have chosen to include in the proposed regulation wording a statement which will allow for this: ‘and any other information prescribed by the CAA’. 

We believe this requirement will allow the CAA to require the disclosure in advertisements of additional information considered important to assist passengers to make an informed decision whether to take a particular flight. It will also enable the CAA to require disclosure of additional information that becomes relevant to potential passengers as a result of developments in future technologies.

The CAA will now finalise the revised policy proposal to the DfT and will collaborate with relevant stakeholders to produce the supporting documentation to enable a regulation amendment. Until these changes come into effect, the cost sharing regulations remain as they are currently and there is no immediate action for the community to take.

We asked for feedback on the CAA’s position on the continued airworthiness regulatory basis applicable to VTOL aircraft.

We received 4 responses in total. One responder left no comment. Three respondents welcomed the approach. One respondent noted that an increase in complex motor-powered aircraft may put more strain on CAA’s resources, therefore adequate funding for regulatory oversight is important.

We acknowledge that respondents were broadly supportive of the approach, but are also aware of the limited number of responses. With regards to funding comments, the CAA reviews its capabilities on an ongoing basis and remains confident it is in a strong position to deliver appropriate oversight.