Oversight report of CAP 722H version 3

Apology

This time, the blog starts with a heartfelt apology.

I’m really sorry to anybody in the UK CAA who feels my blogs are somehow unfair.  It is not my aim to upset anybody.

However, as part of the “regulated community”, I do feel I have every right to call a regulator to account if I believe the guidance it is producing (against which operators set up and try to run businesses), is not up to the highest quality standards.

The output of a regulator is guidance  This should be of the highest quality and when it isn’t, corrections should be made as a matter of urgency.

Let’s take a look at that word “urgency”.

Version 2 of CAP 722H was released in August 2023, a whopping 8 months after its initial publication.  Errors had been pointed out almost immediately when version 1 was released.  The only excuse the regulator may have is that version 2 involved a substantial re-formatting of the risk assessment section to turn it into one of the most difficult to apply examples of its species I’ve ever seen.

So surely, when multiple errors in version 2 were pointed out, it would have been sensible to just check those over and squirt a quick version 2.1 out of Aviation House.

No.  Urgency in the CAA seems to work in multiples of around 8 month periods.  It has taken from 4th August 2023 to 9th April 2024 for the CAA to review a document they knew well to be incorrect.  Finally we have version 3.

But it’s right now, yes?

Sadly, but perhaps unsurprisingly, no.

You see, the CAA has taken 8 months because it appears to have had its mind on other matters.  The new digital DiSCO system has taken priority, together with the release of the CAP 2606 recommended (though not by Eyeup) Operations Manual template.

There has also been a review (because these documents are subject to “continual review”) of the wording in the Operational Authorisation itself.  This is fine in itself, except it has raised a consistency problem.

Consistently inconsistent

One of the prime reasons for having CAP 722H, is that it provides a reference for everybody (inside or outside the regulator) seeking a new or renewed Operational Authorisation for a PDRA in the Specific category.  As such, it contains the template of the wording to be used on each and every Operational Authorisation issued.

If the CAA wishes to change the wording on Operational Authorisations, then it must re-issue CAP 722H, presumably via the SkyWise system.  This lets interested parties know that the OA limitations and conditions have changed.  Operators can then decide whether or not the amended wording suits their business and can choose to renew on that basis, or not.

The problem is that even with a sparkling new 722H document and DSCO system launched to much self-congratulation in early April, the regulator is already issuing OA’s with wording that does not match that found in CAP 722H.  In other words they are not capable of following their own guidance.

The example I’ve found was from an OA issued with wording which is clearly new, in the new DiSCO format and containing some specific wording which shows it to be attempting compliance.  However, on a brief check, I fell upon a difference in wording.  Now the point isn’t whether the different wording in these examples makes a substantive difference.  The point is that the CAA is not following its own processes, allowing it to slip changes into issued OA’s at a whim.  There appears to be little coordination between whatever area writes the rules and the area that issues the OAs

This worries me.  Below are the two examples.  The first is from CAP 722H v3 and the other is from an OA released under the brand new DiSCO system.  In this case, the wording may appear to be in the operator’s favour.  But if the CAA is reserving the power to ignore its own documents then every single OA will have to be checked in very great detail from now on.

 

Off their t**s on mescaline.

Clearly some staff in the regulator have a sense of humour and although taxing, the review of this document had a couple of light moments.

The best was a realisation that the regulator has told operators in no uncertain terms what must be included in their operations manuals.

One of these relates to psychoactive substances where CAP 722H states:

“The UAS Operator’s OM shall include an alcohol and psychoactive substances limitations policy.”

However, the CAA’s own manual template seems to water this down to a throwaway line:

The Remote Pilot responsibilities “Not be under the influence of psychoactive substances or alcohol”.

Note, that we are not told whether the RP “may” not, “should” not or “must/shall” not, and it is presumably fine for key support staff such as unmanned aircraft observers to be off their t**s on mescaline!

This does NOT constitute a limitations policy and further reading reveals that the CAP 2606 OM template doesn’t even mention the alcohol limits set by the CAA in CAP 722.

The CAA’s concept in CAP 722 is based around the controls used on the UK railways.  Not may operators have the sort of resources (including access to the British Transport Police) to carry out accurate drugs testing.

Another relates to remaining within the performance envelope of the UAS.  CAP 722H contains a very clear statement that the operator’s manual:

“…includes a statement that the RP will remain within manufacturer recommended performance envelopes of the UAS at all times.”

Unfortunately, the team that wrote CAP 2606 doesn’t appear to have read CAP 722H and has therefore failed to include such a statement in the  regulator’s “recommended” operations manual template.

Yes, there were a few chuckles…but they were hollow laughs.

Onto the oversight report

Here comes the usual health warning.  Reading the oversight report is not for the faint-hearted, It is necessarily technical in nature and is intended to alert the UK CAA to the problems it has baked in to the latest version of this important document.  Best to read it on a workstation rather than tablet or laptop as you may want to open CAP 722H v3 alongside it.

If you don’t want to read through the details of CAP 722H but need an operations manual that is a practical and compliant  document, then Eyeup can help.  Just pop along here to read about the Eyeup PDRA01 Gateway.

I will also apologise in advance for any technical errors of my own, typos or misleading and inconsistent content.  I feel it is important to get these things in early.  Eyeup Aerial Solutions is very serious business but is, by necessity, part-time in nature.  Therefore resources are exceedingly small.

The full report consists of 8 pages.  It is quite detailed and provides a basis for correction of the CAP document.  It does not pretend to be a complete and comprehensive correction document.  This is because the risk assessment itself is in the gift of the regulator.  It is not our place to provide the mitigations or to place the correct mitigations against specific hazards.  Eyeup is limited to pointing out the obvious errors.  Unfortunately, there are so many of these that the veracity of the whole risk assessment is brought into question, indicating the need for a root an branch review.

As ever, Eyeup extends a hand of co-operation to the regulator.  The CAA may not like appreciate the tone or approach of Eyeup in terms of criticism of its work, but I hope it can see that there is value in having external oversight of its operations.  I would hope so, given that this is precisely what it does to UAS operators working in the specific category.

A copy of CAP 722H version 3 can be found here.

The Oversight Report can be viewed in full as a pdf document here.

These links will take you to view-only pdf documents stored on OneDrive.

 

If you’d like to learn more on UK regulations there are several sources:

Join Eyeup on LinkedIn

Join Graham Degg on Geeksvana in the Very Specific Network (subscription required)

Check out the rest of the Eyeup blogs