We Asked, You Said, We Did

Below are some of the issues we have recently consulted on and their outcomes.

We asked

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. 

You said

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 did

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

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. 

You said

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 did

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. 

We asked

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.

You said

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 did

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

We asked for feedback on the CAA’s approach to type-certification of VTOL aircraft. The CAA policy statement aims at highlighting the approach to type-certification for VTOL aircraft for those seeking to type-certify their aircraft in the UK while the CAA learns more about this type of aircraft, its capabilities, and type of operations they will undertake.

You said

We received 5 responses in total. There was overall support for the approach taken. One respondent wanted to understand if the same principles will apply to certification standards for propellers (CS-P) and engines (CS-E).

Two respondents wanted closer cooperation and alignment with CAA’s international counterparts to expedite approval of VTOLs. One respondent suggested the CAA adopts future EASA Means of Compliance, in consultation with industry, to achieve regulatory alignment.

One respondent asked the CAA to ensure regulations evolve as capabilities of VTOLs and types of operations they participate in evolve as well. Finally, a respondent suggested expanding the description on VTOL to include all aircraft capable of vertical take-off and landing, both with on-board pilot and remotely piloted ones.

We did

We acknowledge that stakeholders were broadly supportive or not against the proposed policy position.

The CAA continues to work very closely with its counterparts around the world, to share knowledge and learn from best practices.  We seek to enable swift introduction of VTOL to the UK market and appreciate the importance of international harmonisation, while maintaining appropriate safety standards for the UK.

We confirm that Certification Specifications for Propellers (CS-P) do apply to propellers used by VTOL. With regard to motors, the CAA is working on developing certification standards specifically for electric motors and will publish the draft standards in the near future.

Regarding EASA’s future Means of Compliance, 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 that approach meets the priorities of the UK.

We do not believe it is appropriate to describe VTOL in a way that would include all aircraft capable of vertical take-off and landing. VTOL have a number of unique features, such as number of thrust/lift units and control systems, that necessitates to treat them as a separate group of aircraft.

Treating them as part of existing categories would not sufficiently account for those differences. Regarding expanding the definition to include remotely piloted aircraft, remotely piloted aircraft in the certified category are already subject to UK regulations.

We remain committed to flexibility in the face of an evolving VTOL market. As the technology evolves, and in consultation with industry, we will work to maintain a proportionate approach to the regulatory framework and meet the needs of the UK aviation industry, without compromising on safety standards.

We asked

We asked for feedback on the CAA’s position on requirements for piloted Vertical Take Off and Landing (VTOL) capable aircraft pilots wishing to perform commercial air transport (CAT) operations.

You said

We received a total of 9 responses. Most respondents were in favour of the proposal to regulate VTOL using existing rules, but there was an interest in seeing timelines for introducing an ab initio pilot licensing regime, and additional policy positions on vertiport and air navigation service providers (ANSP).

Two respondents noted the lack of guidance for licensing of pilots undertaking non-commercial flights. One respondent was concerned that the statement’s principles will apply to non-commercial VTOL pilots as well. One respondent argued experience with flying VTOL should be first gained through non-commercial flights.

One respondent advocated broader use of Flight Simulation Training Devices for Zero Flight Time Training, Line Flying Under Supervision, and skill tests. One respondent suggested IFR pathway should be type specific.

A respondent wanted to know if dual controls will be required for completion of pilot training and if pilots will have to have an instrument rating; and asked about requirements for training hours and cross-country flying requirements.

One responded called for a licensing framework tailored separately to piloted, remote, and uncrewed flight operations.

We did

We acknowledge that respondents broadly supported the proposed approach. There was a notable call for more flexible means for training pilots and guidance on non-commercial operations using VTOL.

We reiterate that this policy position concerns only pilots that seek to perform Commercial Air Transport operations in a VTOL aircraft and does not suggest the same principles will apply to non-commercial operations.

We also acknowledge that a statement of a similar nature on principles applicable to non-commercial operations using VTOL would benefit the industry and will seek to develop this in due course.

We acknowledge that starting in non-commercial operations using VTOL to gain experience before progressing to commercial operations is a valid path for pilots. However, requirements for training and assessment will ensure that pilots holding a commercial pilot licence will meet appropriate standards before they undertake any passenger or cargo carrying operations in a VTOL aircraft.

The CAA is developing its thinking on Zero Flight Time Training (ZFTT), higher utilisation of Flight Simulation Training Devices (FSTD) and training in single-control VTOL aircraft.  The CAA welcomes input from industry to help establish how these approaches could be effectively used for training single-control VTOL aircraft pilots.

Regarding instrument ratings, we note that requirements will depend on the type of operation being performed. We will be using FCL.720.PL as a basis for the initial requirements before commencing a type rating course.

However, our current thinking is that it needs to be adjusted so that there will only be a requirement for an Instrument Rating (IR) where the operational case of the aircraft requires one, in line with current aviation practice.

There are no cross-country requirements in a type rating. Cross country experience would have been gained through the pilot licensing process. Training hours are determined as part of the Operational Suitability Data (OSD) process, which is part of the overall aircraft certification process that the aircraft manufacturer will complete.

If no training hours are present in the OSD, then the minimum training hours contained in the Acceptable Means of Compliance to the Assimilated Regulation (EU) No. 1178/2011 will apply.

Regarding creating separate frameworks for piloted, remotely piloted, and uncrewed operations, this policy statement focuses specifically on initial commercial operations using piloted eVTOL. Remotely piloted aircraft in the certified category covers operations that present an equivalent risk to that of manned aviation.

Because of this they are be subjected to the same regulatory regime (i.e. certification of the unmanned aircraft, certification of the operator, licensing of the pilot). UK regulations relating to the certified category are still being developed and are not yet published. Until unique regulations are available, the principles set out in the relevant manned aviation regulations for airworthiness, operations and licensing will be used as the basis for regulating the certified category. Further information can be found in CAP 722.

We appreciate that the industry would like to see specific timelines for the work we are doing, including a timeline for an ab initio pilot licensing path.   We are developing our thinking while collaborating with international partners, and will share information, including estimated timelines, when available.

We remain committed to the overall target of enabling commercial VTOL operations by 2026. We also continue to engage with industry on an ongoing basis to discuss our overall thinking and policy aims.  You can find further information on our ongoing work and outputs on the CAA’s Innovation Hub.

We asked

We asked for feedback on the CAA’s position on commercial flight operations using VTOL aircraft.

You said

We received 14 responses in total. Multiple respondents asked for timelines for when the interim guidance will be replaced with new or amended regulations. Several respondents called for closer collaboration with the industry and a level of harmonisation with other authorities.

One respondent suggested regulations should be reviewed to account for the introduction of VTOLs. Another respondent suggested that the proposed conversion training would not account for the low-altitude nature of VTOL operations and the locations where they will take place (such as urban environment).

A respondent noted that Rescue and Fire Fighting Services (RFFS) provisions do not sufficiently account for the use of lithium batteries by VTOL and the potential hazards associated with firefighting lithium fires and should therefore be reviewed. One respondent suggested the CAA should work on alternative means of compliance for aircraft unable to fully meet current requirements.

One respondent noted that while the paper is about CAT operations, it also mentions non-commercial operations as well, producing confusion on the scope of the paper. It also lacked rationale for treating VTOL as Complex Motor-Powered Aircraft (CMPA).

Several responses highlighted the lack of detail in the paper on issues such as energy reserve requirements, alternate landing sites/diversions, visibility limits, and other operational elements. There was also an overall preference to maintain operational parity with helicopters.

One respondent suggested current operations rules will not support meaningful commercial eVTOL services and EASA operations rules should be the basis for UK-specific regulation.

One respondent asked for better articulation on how existing rules apply to VTOLs, especially in the context of transition from vertical to horizontal flight.

We did

We are giving all comments due consideration to ensure VTOLs are regulated in an appropriate manner relative to the risk.

To this end, we remain in close contact with the industry to collect their views and suggestions and have undertaken a detailed analysis of all applicable current UK regulations and other countries’ proposed rules. The CAA is committed to the Future of Flight timelines and work is underway to draft revised flight operations rules. Industry input will be solicited. However, no specific timelines can be given at this time on when the regulations will be amended as elements of the changes are outside of our control.

We note that the conversion training mentioned in the policy statement does not replace any additional training that may be necessary to perform certain operations, eg. low-altitude, in specific locations or weather conditions. Conversion training is only intended to assist in enabling a pilot to fly different types of aircraft than the ones they were trained on.

We are aware of the challenges posed by lithium 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.

We point out that the paragraph referring to non-commercial operations was only intended to highlight that cost-sharing flights using VTOL are not permitted. We are currently of the view it is appropriate to treat VTOL as complex motor-powered aircraft because of their novel nature, and broad differences in their constructions and operational performance. This prohibits cost-sharing flights using VTOL aircraft.

Regarding using EASA’s regulations as a basis, 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 it meets the priorities of the UK.

We are also aware that there are other areas of operations policy that will require clarification, including energy reserve requirements and visibility. We are in the process of reviewing all areas of the operations regulations to ensure they are appropriate for VTOLs and their operations, and further consultation in the form of working groups will be established.

You can find further information on our ongoing work and outputs on the CAA’s Innovation Hub.

We asked

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

You said

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 did

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.

We asked

The purpose of the consultation was to seek stakeholders’ views on adoption of a policy to simplify the process for the adoption of harmonised product design related Certification Specifications. The process will enable stakeholders to make use of new and updated Certification Specifications without undue delay.

You said

We received twenty-seven individual responses to our consultation. Twenty-five respondents fully supported the proposed approach. Two respondents did not fully support the proposal, one cited the need for greater involvement of the CAA and UK stakeholders in the CS development process. The other respondent supported the adoption of new and revised EASA CS but wanted the opportunity to make representations to the CAA on each proposed amendment prior to adoption.

Several respondents proposed extending the scope of the proposed policy to include Certification Specifications used outside the initial airworthiness domain. Other comments included proposals for including Special Conditions and Certification Memos in the scope of the new policy.

Several respondents also asked if the CAA could further expedite the CS adoption process as the current approach disadvantages British business who want to produce designs conforming to the latest specifications.

We did

We acknowledge that stakeholders strongly support the proposed changes. There is a clear view that expediting the adoption of EASA Certification Specifications is in the best interests of businesses in the UK.

We note the comments that seek to extend the scope of the policy to Special Conditions and to CS applicable outside the initial airworthiness domain. We have decided not to include these additional areas in the scope of the new policy until we have gained some experience of implementing the new policy. Of the comments that did not fully support the proposal, we note the desire to increase the involvement of the CAA in the development of internationally harmonised standards. The CAA will endeavour to increase UK involvement as our design capability grows. Regarding the remaining comment, the CAA will not be taking forward the proposal to systematically consult on each new or amended CS. This would inevitably extend the time taken to adopt changes and potentially undermine the main objective of the proposal to increase competitiveness of businesses in the UK through reducing the time it takes to adopt new and revised EASA CS.

The CAA will now finalise the revised policy and will publish a new Decision in Official Record Series 9, adopting the latest versions of the EASA derived design related Certification Specifications.

We asked

The purpose of this consultation was to share the CAA’s proposal for the future of remote pilot (RP) competency in the specific category.

The proposal covered:

  • Rulemaking to establish RAEs under an improved legal basis such as the UK Regulation (EU) 2018/1139, the Basic Regulation
  • Establishing medical standards for RPs in the specific category 
  • Developing a framework for the future of RP competency 
  • Developing the supporting RP competency policy, AMC, and GM 

You said

We received 112 responses. Most responses (66%) were received from UAS operators and remote pilots.

The CAA reviewed all the comments received, and the following trends were identified:

  • The CAA should consider retaining the GVC and/or introducing another form of entry level VLOS qualification.
  • The naming convention of the two proposed certificates is confusing and should be reviewed.
  • The subject matter of the RPC-B is too broad the CAA should consider splitting the VLOS and BVLOS elements.
  • The CAA should continue with the GVC bolt-on systems that was previously proposed. 

In addition to the above, the CAA received feedback welcoming the recognition that BVLOS training for RPs is an important enabler for industry. We also received positive feedback on the thoroughness of the work carried on the RPC-A from operators already conducting complex BVLOS operations. 

We did

In parallel to the phase one consultation, the CAA policy team has continued to engage with industry and RAEs through direct outreach and stakeholder meetings.

The CAA will publish a proposed update to the AMC and GM to Article 8 of the UK Regulation (EU) 2019/947 including multiples changes to the RPC framework as a direct result of the phase one consultation feedback. This full public consultation will run for 12 weeks and expected to commence in Q4 2023.

We asked

The CAA consulted on an interim arrangement to continue to require ANSPs to provide documented evidence to demonstrate compliance with regulations and means of compliance associated with Air Traffic Services systems and constituents. The CAA proposed to update CAP 670 ‘Air Traffic Services Safety Requirements’ with a new section requesting ANSPs to provide this evidence.

You said

The CAA received one response to the consultation, with 5 comments.  The respondent did not request changes to the proposed means of compliance to be published in the CAP but requested further guidance to provide clarity and enable compliance, and proposed changes to the associated template forms.

We did

The CAA has published a Consultation Response Document that sets out each comment and includes our response. The guidance and template forms have been updated and the change to the CAP has been initially published as a Supplementary Amendment.

In the longer term the CAA will establish a new Regulatory Framework for the demonstration of compliance and approval/certification of ATS system and constituents, which will be subject to further consultation.

We asked

The purpose of the consultation was to seek views on defining the scope of the environmental assessments for the airspace change masterplan, and the way we will approach carrying them out, including the methodology. We were not consulting on the masterplan itself, the individual airspace change proposals that make up the masterplan, or the environmental assessments themselves.

Please see “Overview” below for more information.

You said

We received 18 responses to the consultation. We have published all 18 responses, but some respondents chose to remain anonymous.

You can download responses, where we have permission to publish them:
(a)
here, for responses submitted through this consultation website
(b) by following the links at the bottom of this page, for responses submitted off-line.

We received responses from:

Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (7): Joint Nature Conservation Council, Natural England, Environment Agency, Historic England, Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Nature Scot, Historic Environment Scotland

National organisations (1): Aviation Environment Federation

Airports (3): All preferred to remain anonymous

Residents affected by aviation (3): All preferred to remain anonymous

Organisations with an interest in a specific airport or location (4): Communities Against Gatwick Noise & Emissions (CAGNE), Heathrow Strategic Planning Group, Stansted Airport Watch, The Royal Parks

The consultation questions asked for a mixture of multiple-choice and free-text responses. These are summarised in the tables below.

(1)  Answers to multiple-choice questions

SEA Scoping Report

Number of responses

Questions 1 to 6 were about the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Scoping Report www.caa.co.uk/cap2526

Yes

No

Don’t know / did not answer

Q1: Are you satisfied with the environmental aspects we have scoped out and in of the SEA, and the objectives, targets and indicators?

7

4

1 / 6

Q2 Are you satisfied with how any significant effects will be identified?

6

4

2 / 6

Q3 Are you satisfied with the definition of the future baseline, assessment case and alternatives?

6*

3

3 / 6

Q4 Are you satisfied with the proposed Zones of Influence for each environmental aspect?

4

7

1 / 6

Q5 Do you have any comments about the type and use of available regional data for each geographical ‘cluster’?

 

These questions were free-text only

Q6 Do you have any other points you would like to raise in relation to the SEA Scoping Report?

 

                                                                                                                  *2 were a qualified yes

HRA Screening Report

Number of responses

Questions 7 to 12 were about the Habitats Regulations (HRA) Screening Report www.caa.co.uk/cap2527

Yes

No

Don’t know / did not answer

Q7 Are you satisfied that the HRA Screening Report correctly identifies all potential significant effects on European Sites?

5

2

5 / 6

Q8 Are the precautionary ZoIs applied to each potential effect to determine which European sites may be affected by the implementation of the masterplan appropriate for the purposes of screening?
 

4

5

3 / 6

 

Is about right

Requires minor mods

Requires major mods

Don’t know /
did not answer

Q9 Do you consider that the CAA’s proposed approach to applying the scientific evidence referenced in appendices B, C and D of the HRA Screening Report to stage 2 of the assessment is appropriate?

4

0

1

7 / 6

Q10 Do you consider that the CAA’s proposed approach to subsequent stages (2, 3 and 4) of the Habitats Regulations assessment:

4

1

 

7 / 6

Q11 Which plans and projects do you think might act in combination with the masterplan?

 

These questions were free-text only

Q12 Do you have any other points you would like to raise in relation to the HRA Scoping Report?

 

Approach to SEA and HRA

Number of responses

Questions 13 to 15 (SEA) and questions 16 to 18 (HRA) below were about the approach we propose to take when producing the actual environmental assessments/reports themselves, later on. This proposed approach is set out in the Approach to SEA and HRA document www.caa.co.uk/cap2528

Yes

No

Don’t know / did not answer

Q13 Are you satisfied that the overall approach to SEA (set out in paragraph 1 of the 'Approach' document) will ensure that the environmental effects of the masterplan are fully assessed?

7

5

0 / 6

Q14 Do you have any comments on the timing of the SEA (stages 1.B – 1.F and Figure 1 in the 'Approach' document) during the development of each masterplan Iteration?

 


These questions were free-text only

Q15 Do you have any other comments you would like to make on the approach to SEA of the masterplan (set out in paragraph 1 and Figure 1 of the ‘Approach’ document)?

Q16 Do you agree that it is not possible to rule out significant effects on European sites (or offshore marine sites) as a result of the masterplan? (paragraph 2.A of the ‘Approach’ document)

6

0

6 / 6

Q17 Do you have any comments on the intention to deliver any required mitigation for adverse effects on the integrity of European sites (or offshore marine sites) at the project level, through the approval process for individual airspace change proposals - rather than at the strategic level through the masterplan? (paragraph 2.C of the ‘Approach’ document)

 

 

 

These questions were free-text only

Q18 Do you have any other comments you would like to make on the approach to HRA of the masterplan (set out in paragraph 2 and Figure 1 of the ‘Approach’ document)?

 

(2)  Answers to free-text questions

The table below shows the themes that were identified from the free-text responses, the main issues that were raised, and how many times.

Summary of free-text responses to the HRA consultation 

Theme

Main issues raised
under this theme

Total number of issues within the theme

Total number of responses mentioning this theme

Protected sites

 

Definitions; scope

3

2

Impacts

 

Various pollutants including NH3, NOx, SO2 ; bird disturbance; cumulative impacts

6

4

Zones of Influence

Definitions; impact risk zones

2

3

In-combination assessment

Road transport; marine environment; land-use planning for airport expansion

3

4

Mitigation

Measures at the level of individual airspace change proposals

1

1

Approach to HRA

Five stages of assessment; imperative reasons of overriding public interest; assessment of the London TMA cluster; air traffic growth; airfield boundary changes

7

4

 

Summary of free-text responses to the SEA consultation 

Theme

Main issues raised
under this theme

Total number of issues within the theme

Total number of responses mentioning this theme

Receptors

Additional areas or matters for consideration; local community impacts

6

5

Impacts

Various pollutants including NH3, NOx, SO2 , ozone, particulates; listed buildings and protected landscapes; visual impact; social intrusion; tranquility; aircraft collisions; vibration; equity and levelling-up; equality impact assessment; unintended consequences of decarbonisation; DfT noise policy; local air quality management regime; human health; cumulative impacts

20

11

Screening thresholds

Definitions

2

1

Zones of Influence

Definitions and methodology; impact risk zones; noise concentration

8

8

Alternatives

Assessment of alternatives; iterative approach to masterplan

2

2

Approach to SEA / miscellaneous

Terminology; references; policy framework; assessment of the London TMA cluster; consultation and engagement; assessment of economic benefits and airspace efficiency vs environmental impacts; efficacy of legislative and policy measures; performance-based navigation; crops for sustainable aviation fuel; Gatwick expansion; land-use planning for airport expansion; air traffic growth; impacts of General Aviation; legal challenge to Jet Zero Strategy

17

10

We did

We are taking into account responses to this consultation in developing the environmental assessments for the airspace change masterplan. We expect to consult on the first of those assessments in 2024.

Please see “Overview” below for more information.

We asked

The purpose of the consultation was to seek your comments on proposed Means of Compliance & Guidance in support of UK Special Condition SC-VTOL, for the certification of electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft.

You said

There was clear support for adoption of the proposed MOC and guidance. Commenters recognised that the material is consistent with that introduced by EASA and that this will benefit UK industry by reducing safety barriers for export to the EU. Respondents also supported the continuation of harmonisation efforts with the USA.

One respondent provided a variety of editorial and technical comments against the material, these were mainly additional to comments that had previously been made by the respondent organisation to EASA, during its consultation process for the MOC in 2020 and 2021.

As MOC to a Special Condition, the published content is not binding. It is a way, but not the only way to show compliance to SC-VTOL. It is therefore possible for an applicant for certification to propose an alternative MOC; provided that this enables a satisfactory demonstration of compliance to the safety objective within SC-VTOL itself. With this broader context in mind, when we reviewed the above comments, we determined that some were of a general nature, while others reflected developing experience with a particular aircraft design. It is also recognised that as a new aviation sector, eVTOL designs are varied and continue to evolve. As such SC-VTOL and the associated MOC are a starting point, and these will evolve with experience from industry and the regulators. We consider that the best way forward, in order to support the over-arching objective of harmonisation with both FAA and EASA, is to retain the MOC text as published and to bring these insights into conversations with other regulators, as we learn through undertaking certification programmes.

There was no objection to the proposed Means of Compliance & Guidance in support of UK Special Condition SC-VTOL, for the certification of electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft.

We did

We are grateful for the submissions received, we have reviewed each comment and provided feedback to respondents as appropriate.

As described above the consensus from respondents was in support of adoption and implementation of the referenced MOC, and of CAA’s continued efforts toward harmonisation with FAA and EASA for this new aviation sector. Where changes to the published material were proposed, and recognising that CAA is committed to evolving SC-VTOL based on experience across both industry and other regulators; it has been decided that these should be addressed either within the broader frame of harmonisation or where appropriate, through consideration of alternative MOC within the certification process.

Note: At the time we published our MOC adoption proposal, the document MOC-3 SC.VTOL Issue 1, had completed EASA Open Consultation, and was in their Comment Response (CRD) process. This has been finalised and Issue 2 was published by EASA on 21 June 2023. We have reviewed issue 2 of the EASA MOC (and CRD) and consider the finalised version to be acceptable to CAA. We have also reviewed it against comments submitted to CAA in response to our MOC adoption proposal. The commenter has confirmed that their comments made to both CAA and EASA, have been satisfactorily resolved by EASA in their final version, Issue 2.

We will proceed to adopt the Means of Compliance & Guidance in support of UK Special Condition SC-VTOL, for the certification of electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft.

We asked

Between 5 January 2023 to 19 March 2023, we asked for your views on proposals for a new version of the Airspace Change Process Guidance, known as CAP 1616.

We suggested proposals on:

  • The structure of CAP 1616
  • Scaling and the baseline in the process
  • Stages, steps and gateways 
  • Engagement, consultation and communications arrangements/processes
  • Clarity of the process and the document
  • Instrument Flight Procedures (IFP)
  • Temporary Airspace Changes/Airspace Trials

You said

106 responses were received in total. You can read the full report by visiting our website: www.caa.co.uk/CAP2567

High level headlines of the consultation feedback received can be found in the Executive Summary of the full report.

We provide detailed analysis of quantitative and qualitative feedback within Chapter 3 of the full report.

Please also see the answers to questions that were not responded to in the Questions and Answers session from 9 February 2023 in this document.

We did

Taking into account stakeholder feedback, we will be progressing a package of changes that will focus on providing simplification, clarification and proportionality. The package of improvements involves multiple strands and some of these will take longer to develop and deliver.  While our priority will be to develop and publish a new suite of CAP 1616 documents, we will also do more to educate and inform stakeholders about the requirements of the CAP 1616 Airspace Change Process.

The key actions from the consultation can be found in the Executive Summary of the main report. 

Rationale and explanation for all actions we are taking are detailed in Chapter 3 of the main report.

Next Steps

We will produce and publish a revised version (V.5) of CAP 1616, and we will work with Change Sponsors to help them understand what the changes mean for their Airspace Change Proposal, if any. Notification of publication will be provided to our stakeholders via our dedicated review webpage and associated media/communication channels.

We asked

We asked for feedback from the regulated community on proposed amendments to CAP 1724 ahead of the 2023 display season. 

We compiled a draft of CAP 1724 Edition 5 and consulted on it over four working weeks from 13 February 2023 to 10 March 2023. 

You said

We received a total of 20 unique comments to the draft CAP 1724 from nine respondents.  

Of all the comments, fourteen clearly conveyed some sort of change. Of these, eleven comments were textual in nature, suggesting revised wording or highlighting minor drafting points. Some of these comments were duplicated between respondents; and the other three comments were more substantive, suggesting changes of the underlying policy. 

We did

We accepted four of all the comments suggesting some sort of change (29%). 

Of the eleven textual comments received, we accepted four. 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 seven we elected not to implement, five called for revisions to the text that we had carefully drafted in cooperation with other organisations, one suggested changes that have already been made, and it was considered that the remaining suggestion would not contribute to the document.

Regarding the three more substantive comments we received, none were implemented. Two of these reflected on material that we thought was covered adequately either in this document or elsewhere. The remaining comment suggested a change to existing text that had been written after extensive consultation with the community.

We have published a final version of CAP 1724 Edition 5 which was published on 6 April 2023. 

We asked

We asked for feedback from the regulated community on proposed amendments to CAP 403 ahead of the 2023 display season. 

We compiled a draft of CAP 403 Edition 20 and consulted on it over four working weeks from 30 January 2023 to 24 February 2023. 

You said

We received a total of 55 unique comments to the draft CAP 403 from 21 respondents.  

Of all the comments, 33 clearly conveyed some sort of change. Of these, 22 comments were textual in nature, suggesting revised wording or highlighting minor drafting points. Many of these comments were duplicated between respondents; and the other 11 comments were more substantive, calling for some sort of change of the underlying policy. 

We did

We accepted 12 of all the comments suggesting some sort of change (36%). 

Of the 22 textual comments received, we accepted 8. 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 14 we elected not to implement, some called for revision to text that we had carefully drafted in cooperation with other organisations, some suggested changes that have already been made, whilst it was considered that the remainder might have further unintended consequences.

Regarding the 11 more substantive comments we received, we implemented 4. Of those we elected not to implement, all bar one asked that we expand on material that we thought was covered adequately either in this document or elsewhere. It was considered that the remaining comment might have further unintended consequences.

We published Edition 20 of CAP 403 Flying Displays and Special Events: Safety and Administrative Requirements and Guidance.

We asked

We asked for comments on the proposals for new Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) relating to the changes made to UK Regulation (EU) 965/2012 (the Air Operations Regulation) by the Aviation Safety (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2021/1203. Regulations 7-11 introduce requirements relating to the detection and prevention of misuse of psychoactive substances and the creation of support programmes. The AMC and GM proposed for: 

  • The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to conduct ramp inspections which include arrangements for alcohol testing. 
  • Commercial Air Transport (CAT) operators to develop a policy on the prevention and detection of misuse of psychoactive substances. 
  • CAT operators to facilitate access to a proactive and non-punitive support programme for flight crew members to assist those persons to recognise, cope with and overcome any problem which could negatively affect their ability to safely exercise the privileges of their licence.

You said

We received 29 comments from 8 respondents.

Your responses generally agreed with the proposed changes. Your comments included the following:

  • Testing should be conducted in such a way as to promote an amicable, non-confrontational atmosphere with a view to preserving the mental and emotional well-being of the crew members concerned, as well as advancing the priority of maintaining flight safety.
  • A request for clarification on an 'appropriate and approved' device and 'national requirements.
  • Specific details on the initial and recurrent training of ramp inspectors with regards to alcohol testing.
  • An operator should establish an appeal process with regards to psychoactive substances.
  • Endorsing the proposed material to enable operators to effectively implement support programmes to assist crews with welfare issues.

You also commented on the potential regulatory burden on small operators implementing the AMC/GM with regards to psychoactive substances and support programmes.

You said that support programmes should be available to all safety sensitive personnel.

We did

The Air Operations Regulation has contained requirements for the development and implementation of policies on the prevention and detection of misuse of psychoactive substances and the creation of a support programmes for all operators since November 2021. We have developed clear and accessible AMC and supporting GM to these regulations, which outlines:  

  • Operator responsibilities for the development and implementation of a policy and associated procedures for the prevention and detection of misuse of psychoactive substances by crew members and other safety-sensitive personnel.
  • Flexibility in the approach to the method of testing to ensure the requirements are proportionate to the size of the organisation.
  • How an operator should meet its requirements to provide a support programme for flight crew.
  • Operator responsibilities for the prevention of a person boarding an aircraft when under the influence of a psychoactive substance and behaving in such a way as to endanger safety.

The AMC and GM were developed with due consideration to the UK industry and our own established reporting processes. Following consultation, the CAA has also carried out a thorough review of all the comments received and made amendments where we feel further clarification is required. For example, we have included in the AMC that operators should provide for an internal appeal process following a confirmed positive test result.

In response to the comments received we have made some adjustments to provide additional clarity on the training of ramp inspectors, and agreed to update the procedure for the conduct of alcohol testing during ramp inspections to help preserve crew wellbeing as far as is practically possible.  

Safety is of paramount importance to the CAA and underpins all our decision-making. At the same time, we acknowledge the potential additional burden, particularly for smaller organisations, to conduct pre-employment alcohol testing and ongoing random testing. Therefore, we have left the frequency of ongoing testing to individual organisations to determine based on their size and complexity of their operation.

 As per the requirement of ARO.RAMP.106 (b), we have established procedures for ramp inspections which are contained in the Ramp Inspectors Manual). The purpose of this manual is to describe best practices and give guidance to the CAA personnel performing ramp inspections including alcohol testing. It covers the delivery, management, and administration of ramp inspections as well as the ramp inspector qualification process.

The CAA has published guidance on the procedures and quality standards for alcohol testing on the UK Ramp inspection programme page of the CAA website.

Specific recurrent training on alcohol testing will be addressed in an update to ARO.RAMP.115 in due course.

National limits of alcohol are defined in ARO.RAMP.106(e) and are commensurate with those in other transport regulations.

Whilst the regulation currently only requires operators to have a support programme available for flight crew, they may choose to make support programmes available to all their employees, including all safety sensitive personnel.

We asked

We asked for comments on our proposals for revisions to the existing CAA Charges Schemes, due to take effect from 1 April 2023.

You said

We received 835 submissions from 672 stakeholders.

We did

Full details have been published in our consultation response document

We asked

We ran a consultation, CAP2335, from 18 October to 16 December 2022 asking the UK General Aviation (GA) community for their views on our proposed strategic direction for pilot licensing and training simplification.

The consultation covered the following themes:

  • Assessing the community’s overall view towards this project and the need for licensing and training simplification;
  • Creating a single set of Private Pilot Licences (PPL) for aeroplanes and helicopters that comply with International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) standards;
  • Creating a single set of aeroplane and helicopter pilot licences that do not comply with international standards. Such ‘sub-ICAO’ licences are designed for flight in UK airspace only and subject to certain limitations;
  • Proposing to better integrate the syllabuses of the sub-ICAO licences with the ICAO PPL to allow holders to progress more easily from one to another;
  • Gauging views on the framework for balloon pilot licensing regarding commercial non-passenger and passenger-carrying balloon operations.
  • Confirming the continued implementation of the Sailplane Pilot Licence framework; and
  • Developing an approach to honour the validity of licences/ratings after we create new regulations: we proposed four options on how existing licences should be treated after a new licensing system comes into force.

You said

We received 1,246 responses to this consultation. All respondents answered the survey questions and most left detailed comments.

  • Overall direction: the vast majority who expressed a view agreed with the need for licensing system simplification, including over half agreeing strongly, indicating a clear mandate from the community to proceed with this project. A strong majority also agreed that this review should go beyond just a simple consolidation of the UK and retained regulations.
  • Technical proposals on ICAO and sub-ICAO licences and consolidating the syllabuses: the vast majority supported each of our proposals indicating a clear mandate for progressing the technical details.
  • Balloon licensing: the majority of respondents who expressed a view favoured retaining a single balloon pilot licence with appropriate ratings for commercial non-passenger and passenger ballooning respectively, thereby supporting continued implementation of the Balloon Flight Crew Licensing (UK Part-BFCL) regulation.
  • Sailplane licensing: an overwhelming support proceeding with the implementation of the Sailplane Flight Crew Licensing (UK Part-SFCL) regulation.
  • Honouring existing licences after we create new regulations: two options were considered by respondents as most attractive: ‘deemed valid for life’ and ‘deemed valid until a sunset’.

We did

We will be proceeding with the next phase of this project to develop technical details on licences, ratings, certificates and training syllabuses across the various aircraft categories within the scope of the project. As with Phase 1, we will do this collaboratively with the GA community.

  • Technical proposals on ICAO and sub-ICAO private pilot licences and consolidating the syllabuses: we will be undertaking a risk-based process to develop of the details both internally and within an expanded GA community working group.
  • Balloon and sailplane licensing implementation: we will be progressing our previous decision to implement the UK Part-BFCL and UK Part-SFCL regulations, and to convert licences to the BPL and SPL respectively to operate Part-21 aircraft. To assist with this, the Department for Transport will be amending in legislation the implementation deadline by an extra year to September 2025.  
  • Balloon and sailplane pilot licensing reform: we will be working with balloon and sailplane experts to explore how UK Part-BFCL and UK Part-SFCL respectively could be improved as part of this wider licensing and training simplification project.
  • Honouring existing licences after we create new regulations: we will further examine the merits of the two remaining options with respect to safety considerations, transition costs, practicality, and wider (eg ICAO) developments in pilot licensing.

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

We asked

We consulted on the Assessment of Environmental Effects as part of SaxaVord’s spaceport licence – granted in December 2023.

You said

The SaxaVord Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) version 2.1 dated 30/09/2022 has been publicised and consulted upon in accordance with the Civil Aviation Authority’s (CAA’s) guidance on the public consultation of AEEs (CAP2352).

This summarises the consultation responses received and how the CAA has taken them into account and ensured any relevant matters have been appropriately addressed in the AEE or the Licence. 

We did

The AEE was updated (V3) on 30/06/2023 in response to requests for further information (RFIs) during the detailed review. A minor update was made to the document, and this was re-submitted to the CAA on 01/08/2023.

Note, as the update was minor, the date and version number did not change within the document. AEE (V3) was not published on the website and re-consulted upon as it was determined that updates to the AEE were minimal and did not materially change overall conclusions, and no further consultation was needed. We have now published AEE V3 for completeness.  

For the updated document you can check the SaxaVord Spaceport AAE V3 series. 

We asked

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.

We also proposed AMC to give effect to the intention of working arrangements and to enable the CAA to permit the installation on UK registered aircraft of components maintained by approved organisations based in the state of signatory national aviation authorities.

You said

We received 18 responses.

We received clear support for the CAA to take steps to make clear which components released on an EASA form 1 are acceptable to be fitted on a UK registered aircraft and when components cannot be.  You said that this clarity could best be achieved by making acceptability determined by the date of the EASA Form 1.    

We also received comments relating to the potential absence of parts in the UK that will be acceptable to be fitted on UK registered aircraft after 31 December 2022 for ELA1 aircraft. You said this was a risk due to European organisations not seeking CAA approval.

We received no comments on the wording to give effect to the intention of signed working arrangements with other national aviation authorities.

We did

We have decided to adopt new AMC to UK (EU) Regulation 1321/2014 (the UK Continuing Airworthiness Regulation) that is simple to understand and easy to comply with that enables:

  • Components released on an EASA From 1 prior to 1 January 2023 to be fitted to a UK registered aircraft
  • Components released by an organisation based in a state with which the CAA has a working arrangement (which includes maintained parts) to be fitted to a UK registered aircraft; and
  • 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 OEM to be fitted to a UK registered aircraft.

We have also decided to publish GM to UK (EU) Regulation 1321/2014 (the UK Continuing Airworthiness Regulation) to make clear that if a part released on an EASA Form 1 does not benefit from the newly adopted Part ML AMC referred to above, and so cannot be fitted to a Part ML UK registered aircraft, the relevant process that must be followed is AMC1 to Part CAO.A.070(a)(2.8) or AMC 2 to Part 145.A.50(d) paragraph (2.8) respectively.