CAA Cap 3268 Webinar Transcript.

Transcript Notes from the Web EC session (mostly verbatim, with timings against the presentation)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nV6-OfzgAA

Hello everyone, good evening. Thanks very much for joining us on this nice summery Tuesday afternoon to talk all things EC mandate and the consultation that  

we've got going. So this is a webinar to provide you with some context and   any clarifications that you might need regarding our electronic conspicuity mandate consultation that we launched a few weeks ago.

This isn't a forum for you to respond to the consultation, but we hope that you'll find it helpful to help you to fully respond to the consultation through a presentation and any questions that come in. You'll see that there is a Q&A function and please feel free to use this to ask any questions that you have.

These will be moderated by our team in the background. So you'll see there's a few of us on the call from our space modernization delivery team and also our general aviation team. Do keep your eye out on that function. Some of your questions will be answered directly on that function, but some of them we will get asked at the end of the presentation if they're broad enough and think they'll be helpful for others. I know a few people have also emailed in ahead of time and these questions will be covered at the end of the presentation. We've got a lot of people on the call today, so if we're unable to answer your questions, we do apologise   and you're welcome to e-mail us. The e-mail will come up at the end of the presentation.

We have a hard stop of 7:00, not least just because we've got an IT upgrade happening about that time. Likewise, there might be some questions that we're unable to answer here if they're a bit more technical or if we don't have the answer right away. We'll try our best, but again, we might need to respond via e-mail, so bear with us. And finally, the webinar will be recorded and it will be made available later this week online.  We can share this via Skywise and you should get a notification when it's live anyway if you've registered for the webinar. So you'll be able to watch it back or share it with anybody else who was unable to attend. So for now, I'll just pass over to my colleague and our Airspace Modernisation Safety Lead, Jonathan Axford, who's going to run through the presentation. I see you, Jonathan.

2 minutes, 17 seconds

Thanks, Billie. Just why, yeah, slides should be coming up now. Hopefully everyone can see that. And yeah, just to echo Billy's welcome and thank you so much for taking the time out of your day and your evening to come along and learn a bit more about the consultation on the EC mandate that we've got live at the moment. We've got a few slides just to walk yourself through which cover off a bit more of the detail around what is in the consultation document itself, some of the key themes, the scope, a bit more background around the journey we've been on electronic conspicuity to the date, some of the  technical requirements that are captured in there, and then also, as Billie said, have time and space  for questions off the back of what we set out this afternoon. Just as why of introduction, yeah, Billie said I'm Airspace Modernisation Safety Lead, so I've been at the CAA now for 4½ years, and today I'm representing sort of the mandate as the technical lead on the project. So kind of covered all of this off already to a certain extent, but what we kind of want to achieve is just raise awareness around what is in the consultation, the document, the questions that we're sort of setting out, and how best your views can inform the overall consultation, the analysis and then the eventual response to the consultation going forward as the  project progresses.

We really want to help give a bit more detail and flavour around the work that's gone into producing the consultation document and the questions and the real detail that we want to get from yourselves as key stakeholders, and the community that would be affected by any mandate going forward. And then as Billie sort of set out at the beginning, any questions or anything that's set out here in this presentation or this evening is not in itself a response to the consultation. So please, off the back of today and any questions you might have, please go and formally respond to the consultation. We're really keen to get all of your insight and views on the proposals that we're setting out so that we can form the best solution going forward.  So just to take us back a few steps and sort of set out, you know, the progress  

Chapter 2: Background and project progress to date

4 minutes, 10 seconds

and where we've been and how we've got to this stage so far with regards to setting out a consultation for an EC mandate. Some of you may be familiar with this, some of you may not, but EC has obviously been a key part of the CEA's policy sort of landscape and framework for over a decade, especially in the context of improving safety for General Aviation, but also in the context of the longer-term ambitions of the Airspace Modernisation

Strategy and some of the objectives of the future of flight challenge as well. That sort of sort of got turbocharged as sort of the turn of 2022 when the CAA and the DFT set out a joint statement for their vision for how electronic conspiracy will be used around the use of ADS-B and 1090 and 978 as being the preferred frequencies for crude and uncrude.

4 minutes, 54 seconds  

And since then, a lot of work has been done to sort of refine the CAA's position around electronic conspicuity. That came to a culmination at sort of 2025 last year,   where we published several documents that set out our current thinking and views around how electronic conspicuity can be used. both in improving Airspace safety, but also in unlocking and achieving the aims of the Airspace Modernisation Strategy. For those of you who aren't aware, the prime document was our EC Technical Concept of Operations, which sets out the performance requirements for EC devices in UK Airspace. And there was a series of supporting documents that went through the work and the research that had gone into producing those performance requirements.

And then we went to consultation on that document, as you may be aware, and produced our consultation response at the back end of last year, but purely focused on the technical requirements, the performance of EC and its role in improving safety and the aims of the Airspace Modernisation Strategy. Around that same sort of time in 2025, the CAA made a commitment to the Prime Minister setting out that we would look to explore options for implementing an EC mandate. That was all in the context of how regulators across the board were challenged with how they would better enable the industries that they regulated.

And that was one of the key strategic objectives that we set out that we would look to explore further. Off the back of that sort of public commitment, we received instruction from the Department of Transport for us to go away and do a piece of work to explore all the different options that are available to us around how you could potentially implement an EC mandate within UK Airspace and provide the benefits that we know it offers in terms of safety, but also the longer-term visions of the AMS. That then kick-started and triggered a huge amount of work, sort of the latter half of 2025, pulling together all  the detail around what are our various options, what are the regulatory mechanisms that we have available to us across Airspace, rulemaking, what are the things that we can do that are in our toolkit that we may be able to potentially be able to be used to implement an EC mandate and pull together that broader business case, trying to scope out some of the strategic, economic, financial impacts, benefits, etc, to pull that into a broader recommendation  that we submitted to the DFT at the back end of 2025, setting out how we think we could  implement an EC mandate.

7 minutes, 11 seconds

The DFT endorsed that recommendation at the beginning of 2026. And that then has kick-started all of the work to date, getting us ready to get to consultation and sort of mobilising a project internally and getting ready to come and talk to stakeholders such as yourself around the proposals and all that work that has sort of been set out over the back end of last year and the beginning of this year is captured as like the core scope and themes of what is set out in the consultation as our proposal for how an EC mandate may look like in UK Airspace and what we're asking for your feedback and input on for the next 10 weeks. So that's a bit of context, talk through some of the detail we've done across EC more broadly.  In terms of a bit more detail around that context of various documentation being produced around  

Chapter 3: EC Mandate in the context of EC policy

7 minutes, 58 seconds

the technical requirements and now the mandate, this slide just sort of sets out a bit more of what that looks like across the two different work streams. So we have sort of framed it in the what and the how. So on the left hand side, you've got our sort of EC Tech framing which sets out those core positions that I referenced that are in the technical con Ops.

There are nine of them, which I'll get to in a bit more detail in a second. Those are our standards. Those are the performance requirements that we currently believe are required to achieve the objectives of improving safety and delivering against the AMS going forward. On the right-hand side, we have then got the detail on the EC mandate. That is the how we are taking those performance requirements, those standards, and we are turning them, looking to turn them into legislative requirements. So we're not creating anything new from scratch. We're taking and basing our work on what has already been done and it's published and has been consulted on in the technical concept of operations at the back end of last year. So there should be no surprises as opposed to a certain extent in terms of some of the performance requirements we're looking to implement through the mandate. Talking of the performance requirements here is for those of you that are not familiar with the EC ConOps are the  

Chapter 4: Performance requirements – what are we mandating?

9 minutes, 3 seconds

9 technical positions that form the core of that of that document that we have captured go through the work we've done over the last couple of years. In terms of the mandate, the sort of core ones are highlighted in green there. So those are the equipage requirements that are split between crewed and uncrewed aircraft. And these are the basis for what would underpin any legal requirement for any device that you would use in the context of a potential mandate going forward.

We've deliberately specified sort of performance requirements because we don't want to set out one device over another. A key aim here is to give flexibility to industry, yourself as users to equip with a device that meets not only these requirements in the first instance, but your operational context and allows for that innovation within industry rather than setting out it must be this type of device. That's not the position that we wanted to be in going forward. In the context of the consultation, there is a question around these performance requirements and how they would align with the broader scope of the mandate as a whole, where it applies to, who it applies to.

So please provide your views and feedback on that. And another key one is position 6, which talks about the use of ADSB-in,   which currently is set out as a voluntary position. One of the key questions within the consultation is we're looking for your feedback on whether that position should change going forward and whether it should be mandatory for not only to transmit ADS-B out, but also ADS-B-in. So 4, 5 and 6 are those crewed specific requirements. Four and five are split across low power devices, where if you're flying at 140 knots IAS or less, you'd be able to equip with a lower power device, typically found within CAP 1391. And if you're looking to fly faster at 140 knots, it'd be a Mode-S transponder with an extended squitter or an ADS-B. So we've split that out there to give that sort of flexibility with the two different types of performance requirements that are set out there. And again, more detail is set out in the EC Con Ops, but also the consultation document itself. And then position 7 and 8, which perhaps less relevant for this forum, are specific to uncrewed, but what's key there is that there are different frequencies that have been set out as if we have set our sort of state position with the DFT back in 2022 around the use of 978 and 1090 going forward.  And as I said at the beginning, we see 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 as being those core positions to underpin any legal requirement going forward as part of the potential mandate. So that is a bit more background, I guess,  

Chapter 5: Key dates and main themes

11 minutes, 27 seconds

on where we've been, how the two projects interact, and sort of the key performance requirements that would underpin any legal requirement going forward. This slide here is a very sort of high level summation of the content that's set out in the consultation document itself. As said, please take the time to go and read that documentation in a slower time.

11 minutes, 46 seconds

But this sort of summarises the key points and sort of the key themes that the questions are sort of focused around. So it was launched on the 14th of July, as I'm sure you're aware, and it's a 10 week period, so closing on the 22nd of September. So please get your responses in in good time. But to go through those boxes sort of step by step.

In terms of scope, our current scope is that the mandate and the requirements would apply to all aircraft civil GAT that are not already legally required to carry and use ADSB. Those requirements are set out in legislation already and in the AIP. It would also apply to all UAFs that are flying BVLOS in UK Airspace. And in terms of its geographic extent, it would apply within UK sovereign Airspace below flight level 100. When we talk about UK sovereign Airspace, we mean that Airspace that extends from 12 nautical miles from the UK coastline.

What's required? Already sort of covered that, but it is those positions that are set out in the initial technical Con Ops is that a split across crewed and uncrewed and they meet the performance requirements set on CAP 3140. Kind of a bit of repetition from last time, but again, there is that split in the crewed requirements, but dependent on the speed you're flying at, and then the UAS element, there are different frequencies that we're asking BVLOS UAS to meet going forward. In terms of our sort of broader policy position at this stage, whilst we have the regulatory sort of power around exemption, there are no blanket exemptions currently expected or provisioned for that we dealt with on a case by case basis. And we're primarily looking for, if anything in that space, alternative means of compliance that demonstrate the same safety outcomes to what we expect to achieve from carry-on devices that meet the performance requirements in the CAP 3140. In terms of that implementation, currently in scope of the consultation is we would allow for a  

13 minutes, 37 seconds transition period of approximately 2 years to allow for purchasing, modification, training,  etc. to prepare for a go-live date of when the mandate would come in force. And in terms of like our compliance oversight mechanisms, we don't want to reinvent the wheel in this space. We want to be able to leverage and utilise existing processes wherever possible and not create anything new wherever possible going forward.  

But more work to be coming in that space over the next couple of years of what that looks like. So I suppose that sort of summarises some of the key themes and the scope that's set out in the consultation and the areas that we're looking to get your feedback and your input on going forward. I've only got a couple more  

Chapter 6: Next steps

slides because it's quite a short slide deck. I think in terms of next steps, consultation, as we said, launched already on the 14th of July, will run for a period of 10 weeks.  

We're doing a whole bunch of parallel engagement over that 10 week period, including webinars such as this, but looking to get out and talk to key stakeholders, operators, Airspace users, get your questions coming in through emails on another forum so that we can engage with you directly. I think, you know, there's been a huge amount of work done across the organisation within the team to get to this stage. It's actually quite exciting to be able to come out and talk to stakeholders such as yourself about our proposals and get your feedback and input.  

14 minutes, 55 seconds

Consultation closes on the 22nd of September and then we'll be looking to publish our consultation response document sort of in November of this year. I think that is it from my side in terms of a quick run through of the core themes of the consultation document itself and the areas that we're looking to get your feedback on. I think it's worth saying that there are several questions that cover all those areas that I ran through in terms of the themes and the scope. Wherever possible, we're really keen to get as much quantitative evidence you can gather around the impact on yourself, the proposals, how you would best engage with a mandate going forward. That sort of information and detail is really, really useful for us and sort of refining what we've got so far and the information we can provide in the consultation response document at the point that we publish it.  But I suppose I will pause there and then I think we've got quite a bit of time,  

Billie, for a bit of a Q&A and back and forth, if that's okay with you.

Chapter 7: End Q&A

15 minutes, 57 seconds

Thanks very much, Jonathan. Did you want to go through some of the questions that came in ahead of time? First, we have had a few questions in already that the team are looking at and moderating behind the scenes. But if you want to have a look at those questions that came in ahead of time, we’ll have a look at those first because hopefully that will cover off some of the stuff that might be coming in as well.

Yes, I can just summarize what the questions were and then provide an answer if that’s easiest from your side.

Yep, sounds good. Thank you.

16 minutes, 26 seconds

Yeah, so I think, as Billie said, we had a few questions that came in ahead of time and we sort of grouped them under key themes and hopefully that starts to answer some of the questions.

Q: The first one, I think, which is obviously a core consideration is around costs, funding and implications for users in terms of what that means in terms of the burden on meeting the requirements of the mandate.

A: I think in the consultation we set out, we recognised cost is probably one of the most significant concerns we would expect from the GA community in terms of what it means and modifying, equipping and meeting the performance requirements set out as part of the mandate.  In the consultation, the question is really  

asking for as much information around what that looks like in terms of the impact on yourself as a user in this context. Quantitative evidence, as I sort of alluded to already, is really, really critical in this space. The more information that you can feed and then provide around how meeting the proposed performance requirements would impact you as a user over that two year transition period really, really helps us take away what that looks like and how we would form that into a consultation response.

17 minutes, 35 seconds

Q: I think the next sort of core question was around some of the technical standards, how we would ensure those standards will remain proportionate and pragmatic in the context of the users that it would apply to, specifically around SIL, SDA values against the devices, the 140 knot threshold, and alternative means of compliance to carry on devices.

17 minutes, 50 seconds

A: So again, I think we recognise that point in the consultation.

Q: There is a question or a couple of questions that are sort of set out, a cover of specifically some of those performance requirements and their context in the mandate.

A: As I said as well, we've already consulted on those technical positions. I think a lot of the detail that is captured in the technical Con Ops, which I would encourage all of you to read if you haven't already,

18 minutes, 19 seconds

goes into more detail about how we've come to developing those performance requirements. There is a consolidated report, CAP 3139, I think it is, which preceded the CONOPS, which goes through in more detail the five individual research projects that we conducted that fed directly into the development of those nine core positions. those pieces of work looked at things like probability detection, the performance of the frequencies over time, the performance of EC in the context of mitigating mid-air collision risk, core human factors challenges, and how EC might fit into a broader Airspace architecture. So we've set that all out already and please engage with that and then we use it to inform your response to the questions that set out the technical requirements. And again, more quantitative evidence around how the use of those performance requirements may impact you, please feed that into your response.

19 minutes, 12 seconds

Q: Next question is around the future of CAP 1391, which has obviously been one of the core documents setting out the performance of those lower powered devices.

A: I think as a sort of set out in one of the previous slides, if I go back actually, position 4 sort of captures a subset ofthose devices that are in CAP 1391, but not all of them. So devices that would be compliant with a potential mandate would have to meet that performance requirement.  

19 minutes, 46 seconds

having said that, that does not necessarily mean that you cannot use all your other devices, EC devices such as farm [FLARM], etc, that do not meet those requirements, it just would not equate to compliance with the mandate going forward as it is currently scoped. But again, as is sort of a core theme in terms of how we would really like you to engage with the consultation, as much quantitative evidence around device availability, usability, etc. is really critical for us to be able to shape our proposals going forward.

20 minutes, 17 seconds

Q: I think the next sort of key question was around some of the broader benefits of compliance and whether it would equate to changing access to Airspace, changing any of the Airspace compliance forces that exist today.

A: I think at this stage, we want to set out that the consultation is not proposing any specific changes that would allow compliance with the mandate to give access to controlled Airspace, TMZs, MATZs, etc., etc. At this stage, we're purely talking about the air to air transmission of EC data for mitigation of mid-air collision risk. Having said that, we see this as sort of the first stepping stone in the longer-term ambitions and aims of the Airspace Modernisation Strategy.  

So that may come into play in the future, but at this stage, the consultation is very much not  framed about that at this stage in time. I think those are some of the key ones, unless there's loads of questions coming in, Billie, that we want to start looking at.

21 minutes, 11 seconds

Yeah, we've got a couple through that I think are worth having a look at. So we've had a couple of questions about compatibility with work being done in Europe and EASA.

Q: So we've got one question from Tony O, who asks, can you give assurance that the UK will use the same systems as EASA? or ensure convergence towards compatibility and a similar question here about

21 minutes, 42 seconds

Lost it because we've had quite a few questions through, but basically about, you know, are we coordinating? Oh, here it is from Graeme. Are you coordinating proposals with similar work being done in Europe?  So anything you've got on that, Jonathan?

A: Yeah, definitely. So I think on that latter part, definitely, we're engaging closely with some of our key critical partners in Europe. We're not the only state looking at potential electronic  

conspicuity mandates. EASA is exploring it. Other states are setting out in Europe that EC is sort of critical and foundational to their future sort of Airspace aspirations.

We are working quite closely with the Swiss authority, Fokker, who are looking at options going forward.  

We've also done some engagement with the Australians, etc. But I think one of the key differences between the UK's current position and some of the work being done in Europe is our position is firmly set around ADS-B and the use of 1019 and 978 is the preferred frequencies.

That strategic sort of position has been set out as a joint state position between the CAA and the DFT in 2022, and that forms the basis of our current position on EC. Europe is very much going more down the ADSL route, which is where there is a little bit of a divergence between the two states. But as I said, at the moment, our current thinking around EC is on ADSB.

But we continue to work really closely through Eurocontrol and other partners around how best we sort of align as much as we can on the future release.

Thank you.

23 minutes, 12 seconds

Q: We've got a couple of questions on funding, slightly different themes on them. So one is about, it's from Paul, who asks, is any funding support planned for GA operators similar to the EC rebate scheme to offset retrofit costs?

A: So yeah, that's a fairly easy one to answer.  Again, this is set out in the consultation as well, but currently the scope of our proposal does not include government funding for any further rebate scheme above and beyond what we've already done.

Q: Okay, and a second question on funding, again from Paul, who's asked, will UAV operators contribute to the mandate funding given the shared benefit of Airspace deconfliction?

A: So I guess in answer to that question, they would be required to fund their own equipage and requirements to meet the performance requirements of the mandate going forward, but there is not currently scope in the proposals or the consultation for them to provide funding to other Airspace users.

24 minutes, 18 seconds

Q: Thank you. I've got a question here from  Dave, who says, I'm a keen supporter of  

EC for General Aviation Safety and use Pilot Aware and Sky Demon in my aircraft, but I'm concerned that the mandate direction seems to favour ADSB out on 1090 megahertz when the Pilot Aware manufacturer cautions that 1090 technology cannot cope with radio traffic expected. What's the CAA's position, please?

A: Well, that's a really good question. So I think that consolidated report that I sort of alluded to earlier on, CAP 3139, covers some of that detail where we did some specific research and a work stream looking at the performance of 1090 as a frequency and sort of worst-case scenarios up to 2040. looking at how traffic will change over time.  

Based on that sort of work and the continued research we do in that space, we feel very  

confident around the performance of 1090 going forward. But I think the benefit of that is we have deliberately split the frequencies across the two different Airspace users.

So UAS being on 978 primarily for in and out between the two of them and crewed on 1090 allows us to better manage the frequency congestion on 1090 going forward is our current position. And again, CAP 3139 and CAP 3140 go into a bit more detail about the specifics of the work that was done in there. It's a really interesting work-stream, actually. I'd recommend reading it.

25 minutes, 42 seconds

Q: Thank you. Got a question here from Mike who says, has consideration been given to ground based rebroadcast of competing EC standards to allow interoperability rather than mandating a single EC standard?

A: Oh, that's a very technical question. So I won't be able to answer it in a load of specific detail but what I can say is that we do have another work stream looking specifically at ground infrastructure and how that would support electronic conspicuity going forward and its role in enhancing that air to air baseline that we're looking to create through this work. But perhaps that's one we can take away in a bit more detail, Billie, to engage with our colleagues who are more involved in that and get a better answer.

Yeah, OK. Thank you, Mike. It might be worth dropping us an e-mail on that one, just so we were waiting to come back to you, but it's probably worth just dropping us an e-mail if you've got anything further to add on that.

Q: I've got another technical question here, so I'll ask you, Jonathan, and then so we can always come back to the question later on.

26 minutes, 55 seconds

So this is from David, who says the GA community has rightly adopted portable EC units, especially with the Sky Echo 2. It's unclear whether this meets the technical criteria, particularly regarding SDA being one or higher. Some clarification on this would help.

A: Yeah, good question. So I think if I go back to this slide here, so specifically position 4  

allows for the use and equipage of those carry on lower powered devices. Our current engagement with manufacturers and the work we've done through the development of the technical requirements, means that the Sky Echo as it exists today would meet those requirements going forward is our understanding. I think there's been some confusion because some of the performance data-sheets across various distributors have not necessarily been updated. The most up-to-date information we have is that they would meet that performance requirement for position 4. So if you're operating at 140 knots, indicated Airspeed or less, then you'd be able to equip with a device that meets the standards, which would be a carry-on lower powered device that covers in CAP 1391.

Thank you.

28 minutes, 7 seconds

Give you a short break here because I'm going to bring in our colleague Jordan from the GA Policy team who's going to answer

Q: a question from John, who says, will gliders have to support ADSB out rather than Flarm?

A: So yeah, good afternoon or good evening everybody. So gliders are in scope of the ADSB out mandate.  

However, we're not saying that Flarm needs to be retired at all. The CIA [CAA] recognizes the fantastic work that Flarm has done for deconfliction in glider on glider scenarios. So going forwards, we may well see that people are equipping with both Flarm and ADSB and we're aware that some of the cell playing sailplane Community are already doing that.

28 minutes, 53 seconds

Great, thank you very much.

Q: A couple of Questions from Paul who is asked, working out how to say this out loud because there's all these kind of symbols here. So why is, do you know what, I think I'm going to come back to these and we'll respond to these a bit later. I'm just going to get colleagues in the background to check them for me.

29 minutes, 12 seconds

We've got a question here from Andrew.  

What is the timetable for ANSPs, including NATs, to start using ADSB alongside Mode S to allow for under 140 knot manned aircraft that comply with the proposed mandate but do not have transponders? to access TMZs and other transponder mandatory Airspace.

A: Oh, that's a good question. So currently there is no fixed timeline for any work relating to that. However, we recognise discussions around the use of ADSB for the provision of air traffic services and potential access to Airspace. For those of you familiar with the TMZ policies that exist today. There is an annex in there that does allow for ANSPs to  

where they can demonstrate the safety assurance, to use ADSB for access to requirements for TMZs. Not aware of any TMZs that currently allow for that, but that is already written into the policy specific for that. But as I think I sort of covered off, our current proposals are not specific to the use of ADSB, for the provision of air traffic services. However,  

that may be a future work stream that we look at as we continue to build out this sort of   foundational rollout of EC. I think this is very much our baseline, the mandate, and then we can build on that going forward. In line with the AMS.

Thank you.

30 minutes, 36 seconds

Q: Got a question here from Thorsten who says, conspicuity is one aspect and helpful to increase awareness in there by safety. For drones to be able to react, are you also working on digital flight rules and how to operalisation that?

A: Well, that's a good question. So I think Digital Flight Rules is, for most of you who are familiar with it, is a piece of work that's currently being led by NASA in the US and the time frames for some of the work to come out of that we're looking at well into the next decade and beyond. However, in the context of enabling UAS more broadly, what I can talk to, other than the flight rules piece, is there's a whole bunch of other work that sits beyond EC in terms of how those operations will be enabled. There are a whole bunch of other projects and work streams, detect and avoid, unmanned traffic management, ground infrastructure, EC, etc. that will all come together to safely enable those operations going forward. And there's another document that we set out, we published, I think, last week, which is our sort of vision for BVLOS going forward, which includes EC as one element of it, but more broadly captures other projects that will be looking to enable that. DFR is not necessarily one of those currently, but I'm aware of some work taken internationally, but again, the complexities of that mean it's not a short-term fix.

31 minutes, 58 seconds

Thank you. I'm going to pass over to my colleague Alex, who's going to ask a couple of the questions that we've had in from Paul, please, Alex.

Q: I muted the shame of it. I may know I might I might not do any better than Billie, but I'll try them out because Paul, I think you've got quite a few questions around the technical requirements again around why SIL. (See, I failed!) Equal or greater than one for those at less than 140 knots, why are we requiring that?  

32 minutes, 40 seconds

And why not use existing uncertified GPS sources?  And then he goes on to talk about how CAP 1391 Devices already provide tactical deconfliction at SIL of zero.

A: Yeah, I can cover that off, I think, Alex. Thank you. So I think, again, this goes back to the work that we did over the last couple of years, those sort of five core work streams and other research that's detailed in CAP 3140, the con Ops, but also CAP 3139, which is the consolidated report looking at how we would generate the  performance requirements, not only for improving safety and reducing mid-air collision risk for crewed, but also the minimum performance requirements needed from electronic conspicuity for UAS to use, detect and avoid.  

So the combination of those two core objectives is where we have resulted on the performance requirements as they've established today, which is where that SIL and SDA of 1 has been captured currently in position 4 for the lower powered devices. It's not just the interaction for crewed to crewed, it is the ability for the UAS to ingest that EC data for the minimum performance of their detect and avoid system. Going forward, hopefully that helps.

Thanks both.

34 minutes, 5 seconds

Q: Question here from  Pete Stratten. Hi, Pete,  

who says, Jonathan notes that the CAA is seeking quantitative data in consultation responses. The consultation appears to describe benefits in general terms, e.g. safety or Airspace Modernisation, rather than quantifying exactly what benefit is derived. As consultees, how do we find the detailed benefits that the proposed mandate will deliver?

A: So, that's a good question. So again, some of the detail has already been published in previous documentation, but through the delivery of the rule-making project going forward, we're required, as those of you familiar with that activity, to do a detailed options assessment around benefits, etc, which at a certain point in time is published. We haven't published that yet because that's not the time in the term and sort of the phase and the life cycle of the project. But that work is underway and will be made available at the point in time with the rule-making activity. But again, a lot of the information has already been shared and then this is building on that going forward as part of any sort of rulemaking task. That's a fair question.

35 minutes, 9 seconds

Q: Thank you. Question here from Paul who asks, how will AC owners of vintage aircraft with no electrical system meet the requirements?

A: Again, a very good question. I think there is a section of the consultation that sets out how we recognise some of the challenges in that space. And again, is where we're allowing or we provisionally allowed for a high-level alternative means of compliance wherever appropriate. And again, in the context of those sort of challenges for you to be able to equip with carry on devices or to retrofit and modify an aircraft for sort of fitted devices, again, getting that detail about what challenges you may face in meeting the requirements of the mandate as part of the consultation response is exactly the kind of detail that we want to gather from your responses. So I think in that instance, please feed back into the consultation formally, provide information and examples, and then we're able to take that away and help it shape ourproposals going forward.

36 minutes, 10 seconds

Okie dokie. Thank you.

Q: Just to mention, we've had a couple more questions on the 140 knot and seal issue. Paul, I recommend if you drop us an e-mail at EC@caa.co.uk because you've got several questions there. I think it might be easier for us to answer you kind of more directly on that. So if you could drop us an e-mail, we'll come back to you on those questions.

So thanks very much.

36 minutes, 37 seconds

Q: Okay, question here from Keith.  

He says, the Aegis and other reports suggest that there should be a revision of CAP 1391 to overcome the known deficiencies. When will this new specification be released, please?

A: That's a good question. So I think there are already some plans to revise some elements of  CAP 1391 to provide a bit more clarity based on the performance requirements that have already been published in CAP 3140. But in the longer term any updates to CAP 3091 would have to be done in the context of what any potential essential means of compliance or guidance material would be published alongside legislative requirements. So there may be an update to CAP 1391 or some of the information may be taken and put in a different place to set out that AMC and GM, but there will be more information and changes done to that to help it reflect more broadly what the performance requirements would be needed to comply with the mandate going forward.  So, there's always a decent planning for that transition period around how we would best communicate them.

Thank you.

37 minutes, 46 seconds

Q: Again, I'm going to bring in Jordan to help answer this question from Graeme, who asks, given the GA pilots are being expected to fund this update, will we get any benefits? Maybe a proper radar-based London info service and or expanding coverage from other radar based stations?

A: Excellent, thank you very much for the question. So obviously the Airspace Modernisation strategy is much wider than just the [sea?] mandate. The CAA has been doing some work on flight information services, especially those outside of controlled Airspace. We have been engaging with NATS and other ANSPs on this matter to look to improve the capability of FIS outside of controlled Airspace. So can you watch this space? There'll be consultations and further engagement on this piece, but separate obviously to the EC project.

Thank you, Jordan.

38 minutes, 45 seconds

Q: Question here from SH who asks, what is CAA position on expanding the use of 978 megahertz ADSB?

A: It's a good question. I suppose at this stage, the scope of the use of 978 is as it is set out in the CON Ops and the consultation document and its use for UAS. However, that's not to say that that may change over time. I think we recognise that what we've published and what we're working on in terms of performance requirements and the standards reflects our thinking at this point in time. And that will change and evolve as technology changes, use cases changes, etc. And that may include expansion or changes to how 978 is used across a variety of Airspace users. But at this stage, it is very much focused as set out in those existing positions.

39 minutes, 38 seconds

Thank you.

Q: Question here from Jeremy. Two questions actually.

Has the CAA conducted a regulatory impact assessment for this initiative and is it publicly available?

And the second question is, has the CAA considered the potential bandwidth saturation of 1090 megahertz given the increased, potential tenfold increase, in utilization following general adoption by the UK GA fleet.

A: So I think on that first point, that goes back to what I sort of set out earlier around some of the options assessment work that we're required to do as part of the rulemaking activity. We're not at the space in the project yet, but we can put that out externally, but it will be published alongside any future rulemaking activity in this space. I think generally, though, across all of our EC sort of work and the benefits we set out there, safety is obviously one of our core benefits and objectives of any sort of impact assessment, reducing or managing the risk of mid-air collision both today and in the future is one of our core aims. We work really closely with our colleagues in UCAB and the AIB who consistently set out that a sort of interoperable, reliable EC baseline is really needed in the context of managing that risk. And then I think in the context of UAS and the expansion of that sort of user group, it helps maintain that sort of equitable access to Airspace. So where we have sort of segregated Airspace cropping up. to sort of enable and manage those drone operations. We recognise electronic conspicuity as one of those key foundational enablers to reduce the reliance on those standalone Airspace structures, therefore maintaining some of that extra access to Airspace going forward.

And I think on the second part of that question, which was around the performance of 1090 over time, Again, we've done some of the work in that space to look at how that frequency will be managed up to 2040. Again, the detail of that has been published in the consolidated report, where we've taken some very conservative numbers and we have confidence that, again, by splitting the frequencies by crewed and uncrewed, that we're able to manage that going forward on 1090.

Oh, thank you. Let's have a look where we're at with the questions. We're still getting quite a few through. We've got about 15 minutes or so left. So where are we?  

41 minutes, 52 seconds

Q: A question here from Jeffrey, who says, I agree with the benefits of EC and interoperability, but the operational requirement for ADSB equipment places a very high cost and technology burden on the lighter end of Aviation. For example, gliders, paramotors, hang gliders, etc. Is the CIA [CAA] looking to address this in any way?

A: So I think, going back to some of the points made about costs, etc., again, quantitative evidence and feedback around what those challenges and implications look like to those Airspace users is really key as part of your engagement with the consultation. I think in the context of the benefits and the objectives we're looking to achieve, we see that EC is critical going forward, both for managing safety, also enabling the AMS to sort of set out a current approach and proposals don't allow for or don't include any government funding that will cover any cost. But again, through the consultation and your responses, please provide evidence, information and we can take that away.

42 minutes, 55 seconds

Thank you.

Q: Question from Richard who asks, how is it envisaged that the continued airworthiness of any EC devices, whether they be fitted or carry-on, be regulated?

A: It's a good question. So I think in some of the previous slides around some of the  

key themes and scope, we would expect to use existing processes for any sort of Airworthiness oversight wherever possible. However, more to come in that space over the next couple of years as we look to transition and implementation, but our sort of overall objective and aim is not to reinvent the wheel wherever possible when it comes to that sort of oversight and compliance piece.

43 minutes, 36 seconds

Thank you.

Q: A question from Anthony, who says, I'm only aware of 1 carry-on EC device that is available now, SE2, I'm assuming Sky Echo 2. Is the CIA aware of new devices coming onto the market that will be compliant?

A: So I think as part of our ongoing engagement, one of our key areas of activity is engaging with manufacturers over the next couple of weeks about how they would be providing or creating devices that would meet the performance requirements going forward. I think a lot of the feedback and engagement we've had up until now has been a lot of manufacturers have sort of been waiting for us to really clearly set out what our position is with regards to the performance before they commit to manufacturing and developing these devices. So I think our view is at this stage by really clearly setting out our stall and sort of saying these are the performance requirements, there is a mandate that we're looking to scope that we would expect industry to innovate and develop those devices so there'd be more than one on the market. And again, that sort of leans to why we've set and landed on performance requirements rather than specifying a specific device, because it allows for that innovation and sort of industry to develop over time.

Thank you.

44 minutes, 58 seconds

Q: A question from Roger Hutchinson (Hopkinson?), who says, you indicated you're consulting with EU organisations such as the EASA, but did not mention any consultation with EU pilots or their representative organisations. Do you have any comment?

A: It's a good question. So I think, yeah, obviously with the scope of the consultation, it would cover foreign Airspace users that come into UK sovereign Airspace up to flight level 100, they would have to comply with the performance requirements. So I think through that engagement with our partners in Europe, we're looking to get that feedback as well. But having said that, if there are any specific organisations that anyone thinks we need to be engaging with, we'll take that feedback. But that's definitely part of our ongoing engagement over the next couple of weeks.

45 minutes, 40 seconds

Thank you.

Q: Another question here from Pete who says the ANSPs are not in scope of this proposed mandate. At which stage in the plan does CAA intend to mandate ANSP ADSB compatibility?

A: That's a good question. I think at this stage we don't have any specific timeline for when that would come into scope. We just see it as a future phase of activity once we've got this sort of air-to-air baseline element of EC across the line. That's all right?

46 minutes, 11 seconds

Thank you.

Q: A question here from Keith.  So he's pulled out a quote. So I'm going  

to read out the quote and then ask the question. So the quote is from CAP 3139, which says, it's estimated that for primarily manned aircraft, the current 1090 megahertz load is sustainable up to around the year 2040. When a total of 2,123 active airframes were estimated to be transmitted across the UK. And the question is, is this not a significant underestimate when 30,000 potential GA aircraft take to the skies?

A: That is a good question. Can we take that offline to look at in more detail some of the work we've done since then to give a bit of a more rounded response, if that's okay, because I'd like to get into the detail of that if possible.

Sure. Keith, we'll look to come back to you, but again, I recommend if you just drop us an e-mail.   Again, if there's any other further questions you've got to ask around that, then we can respond to you, but we will look to get back to you with the details we've got. Thank you. Yeah, thank you.

47 minutes, 14 seconds

Q: Jeremy, your question has been answered by Jordan in the chat. So just for the rest of the call, Jeremy asks, presumably the 140 knot definition is TAS or IAS and not GS.  

A: And Jordan said that cap 3140 addresses this point and the decision to use 140 knots IAS.

47 minutes, 41 seconds

Q: A question from Paul who says CAA has confirmed that the GA will bear 100% of the cost for equipping GA fleet for a system whose primary beneficiaries are BVLOS UAS operators. No economic justification for this position appears anywhere in cap 3140 or cap 3139. Can you explain the basis for this policy?

A: So yeah, I think it goes back to those two initial points that we set out around improving safety for Airspace users and managing that risk of mid-air collisions. Again,  

for those of you that are familiar with the work done by the UK Air Prox Board and the AIB, they've done several pieces of work and research sort of setting out the role of EC in the future and how it can contribute to improving safety and reducing the risk of mid-air collision. So I think that is one of our core aims with regards to the scope of the mandate going forward. And again, it's that point around actual access going forward. Currently, BVLOS UAS rely on things like TDAs and TRAs to manage their operations. Going forward we would expect over time as we get a sort of interoperable baseline of EC with broad compliance across the board of Airspace users, we would see a reduction in the requirement of those specific Airspace structures. So I think our upfront ambitions and objectives [are] around managing safety, managing actual access for the GA community, not just those economic considerations.

Thank you. Just to flag, we've got 10 minutes left.

So if you've got any questions, I suggest getting them in now. We've still got a few to get through. But I just want to make you aware if you get your question in now, hopefully we'll get to it. But we may not have all of the time.

49 minutes, 22 seconds

Q: So a question here from Alan, who says, you mentioned the AMS. Airspace Modernisation strategy. Is there going to be a webinar or a presentation on what the AMS is and how it will benefit GA?

A: I think we can look at taking that as an action as a follow up if there is, if there is, if we think there's benefit for the group here. I don't think that would be an issue. I think it probably my colleagues in the AMS team who we go to, but I don't see a problem in setting that up. Yeah, we can take that away.

Yeah, definitely. And I would just say just keep an eye out in future for that kind of thing, because the AMS is always evolving over the years and time as policy evolves. So I'm sure there will be things like that in the future that we'll share.

Thank you.

49 minutes, 58 seconds

Q: Colin asks, if EC is mandated as proposed, then what degree of reduction will we see in controlled Airspace. Much more Class G and much less AE, I'd assume.

A:So, it's a good question. So I think it goes back to some of those previous points around access to Airspace. So currently, with the scope of the mandate, there would be no change or reduction in controlled Airspace structures or an increase in Class G Airspace we would expect because compliance with the mandate as currently scoped would not equate to access to those Airspace structures or a change to the rules associated with them, all we would expect to see over time is a reduction on reliance on sort of segregated or special use Airspace structures, temporary danger areas, temporary reserved areas for the operation of BVLOS UAS. So again, we're better able to manage that actual access to Airspace and you've stopped seeing or see a reduction in some of those structures cropping up across UK Airspace. And yeah, challenges that are associated with that. So yeah, very much focused on air to air EC currently, not scoped for provision of ATS or direct access to controlled Airspace structures. That may change over time and a future phase of work but I think the real benefit with regards to Airspace is again that special use Airspace, those segregated Airspace structures and then how they utilize going forward.

Great, thank you.

51 minutes, 29 seconds

Q: Richard, your question about the implications of the GPS network has been answered by my colleague Jordan, so do take a look there. (so what was the answer?)

51 minutes, 46 seconds

Q: Mike P has asked, can the CAA issue a consolidated document targeted at the GA community? You've already said that there have been at least six studies that the GA pilot should be aware of. I dread to think how many pieces of work this must be. Or are they already kind of available, Jonathan?

A: Yeah, so I think they will be published across the board, but I think that's something we can take away and look at as sort of our engagement going forward if there's something that we can pull together that is a one-stop shop. Yeah, we can take that away as a potential activity.

Thank you.

52 minutes, 16 seconds

Q: Bill asks, CAP 3139 talks about the situation of 1090 megahertz. It happens at 2123 active airframes. We must be more than that in the UK already.

A: I think we answered that one, didn't we? We were going to take that away and have a look at that so, Bill, will again, if you drop us an e-mail, we're going to be looking at that question, but we'll look to get back to you on that. Yeah, thank you.

52 minutes, 49 seconds

Q: Colin has asked, have you asked how many gliders are in the air on a good soaring day? Are you sure 1090 megahertz will cope? Similar kind of question there, I guess, about numbers of GA aircraft.

A: Yeah, and I think that's something we can cover off offline, but yeah.

Yeah, again, Colin, do drop us an e-mail.  We'll come back to you on that.

Q: Charlie asks, will you be capturing and publishing the Q&A in this webinar? There's a lot of good details in the questions and the answers will be good to publish.

A: I can answer that one. So we're recording the webinar and there'll be, we'll be able to, we're going to post that on YouTube and there'll be a transcript there. So the questions will be captured and published that way. I'm sure we can have a look at how we potentially put all of the Q&A into a document that we can share via kind of Skype. So keep your eye out on that one.

OK, 5 minutes left. So I'm just going to double check some of the questions to see if there's anything we haven't covered particularly.

53 minutes, 50 seconds

Q: So Tom asks, a fundamental question is who would be expected to use new ADS-B data, how and to achieve what? There is no existing planned ground infrastructure and so it has to be an air to air solution. There are planned exemptions for military aircraft and possibly state aircraft, so it cannot be for other aircraft, crewed or otherwise, to avoid them. VLOS and crewed operations are not included, so it cannot be to other aircraft.

That makes sense as a question.

54 minutes, 27 seconds

Can you repeat that again? Sorry, Billie, I think I missed something.

I'll repeat the first bit for you. A fundamental question is who would be expected to use the new ADSB data, how and to achieve what? Kind of a big question there.

A: So I think the ADSB data is for that air to air situational awareness, so the transmission on 1090 and then currently the optional ingestion of ADSB in. I think the BVLOS side of things, they would receive the 1090 ADSB signal for the detection and avoid element of managing conflict with crude [crewed] and then 978 out and in for managing UA to UA risk. Does that answer the question?

I think it does, hopefully. If not, again, please, we take that away.

I think. Yeah, great. Thank you.

55 minutes, 14 seconds

Q: Has a question from Alistair. Has any work been done on the real-world range of CAP 1391 devices?

A: Yes, so there is a piece of work that. I think some of the detail is in CAP 3139 around probability of detection that covers both 1090 & 978 kind of devices and the performance requirements. And then we are just coming to the end of a second phase of that activity which we've done in partnership with Kinetic, which is building on some of the initial results, again, which will go into sort of finalising those performance requirements. So some stuff's already published and there is more work being done. I think that's a key point, you know, since we published the EC ConOps, our work on EC hasn't stopped. A whole bunch of other activity and research has been continuing in the background. I suppose, basically, (try overcharged???) by the ambitions of the mandate, so more to come in that space as well.

Thank you. We'll try and just fit a couple more in.

56 minutes, 10 seconds

Question from Jeremy.  If an aircraft is capable of greater than 140 knots, but flies at less than that, can they equip to the lower standard?

A: So yeah, currently the wording is it's your indicated Airspeed. So if you have an aircraft that is capable of flying it faster than 140 knots, but you choose to fly at 139 or whatever it may be, then yes, your compliance would be able to be demonstrated through the use of a low power devices. But obviously, as your speed increases, you would be expected to comply through the composition 5 and the sort of certified solution. The reasons for that are managing safety and mid-air collision risk, but also the performance of those devices changes as speed increases as well.

57 minutes, 6 seconds

Hey, thank you.

Q: Question here saying from Tim who says, you keep saying that allocating 978 to UAVs would mitigate the saturation risk to 1090, but the kinetic study in the consolidated report that predicted problems from 2040 assumed that already. Why is there the confidence that this won't be a problem?

A: So I think my framing of that, if I wasn't clear, I apologise, but is that we don't want to put the UAS on 1090 and exacerbate any congestion problems by having them all on the same frequency. So again, that goes back to that strategic decision that was made back in 2022, that we would split the use across the two frequencies. A, to sort of manage some of the congestion and the risks associated to 1090, but also to reflect the operational context of UAS, how they would detect each other and how they would use EC in from crewed aircraft and detect and avoid. And again, I think a couple of questions have come in about some of the detail on that. Can I see your report and we can take that away and we'll provide a more robust answer.

Great, thank you. Apologies, there are some more questions, but we are out of time for today.   We do really appreciate everybody joining the call and for your questions. If we haven't answered, if you've got any other burning questions, you can contact us via the e-mail on screen, which is ec@caa.co.uk. The consultation is still running, I think, until the...

Mm. 22nd of September, so plenty of time. Don't rush your responses. We really want them to be, you know, as detailed as you can. So do send us any further questions if you need any clarifications. But I just want to say a big thank you to Jonathan for the presentation, to Jordan for stepping in on some of those questions, and then my colleague in the background who've been looking and moderating some of the questions. As I said, this has been recorded and will be published a bit later in the week, so you can feel free  

to re-watch it and share it with others. Thanks again and have a really good evening. Bye.

59 minutes

‍