Key Requirements
For those not familiar with this document (and few need to be), CAP 722B is the UK CAA’s guidance to those who desire to take the plunge and become a Recognised Assessment Entity. As the dwindling number of such organisations will tell you, becoming an RAE is a route to hassle-free riches.
But how do you go about reaching this zenith of UAS (drone) competency?
The key is CAP 722B
CAP 722B is titled “Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in UK Airspace – The UK Recognised Assessment Entity” and it forms the guidance to RAEs and those on the journey to becoming one.
Being a CAA document, and focused as it is on those destined to teach the current generation of remote pilots it is obviously a great example to the training organisations.
One would be hard-pressed to find an error is such a critical document. Imagine, with thousands of new pilot recruits passing through their (mainly online) portals every year, you would imagine that the document the training organisations are working to must be near perfect.
Let’s look at the statistics around just one aspect shall we? That aspect is document control.
The Facts
As of the date of this article, CAP 722B sits at version 4.

CAP 722B CAA Header page details
Unlike some CAP documents, when you download the document it does actually load into a file titled “20230501-cap722b-version-4-final.pdf”, so at least the Version number seems to tie up.
Here is the Amendment page from CAP 722B

CAP 722B Amendment sheet
Is this the start of the breakdown?
I don’t expect many…or any of your to get the reference to the Tears for Fears song. But here are the lyrics, and as with many aspects of the CAA where document control is involved it appears appropriate…
Is this the start of the breakdown?
I can’t understand you
Is this the start of the breakdown?
I can’t understand you
Is this the start of the breakdown?
(with thanks to Roland Orzabal).
For those who think that the problems with this document are minor and unimportant, I’d probably agree with you. After all, very few of us print documents out. We maintain Word documents or PDF copies, which can be readily navigated and even searched to find the appropriate section. There’s no chance of mixing one document into another, as may happen when documents are printed out and shuffled, something everybody does on a regular basis.
However, the CAA take this sort of thing VERY seriously. Try getting an Operations Manual past the CAA gatekeepers where the date on the header doesn’t match that on headers or footers. It’s one reason that Eyeup has always recommended removing dates from the tops and bottoms of each page…it’s just too much to manage.
But the regulator knows best and obviously has the almost enviable task of just having to product accurate and well-managed documents…to help us all stay safe.
And this is where it all breaks down.
More facts about CAP 722B
- The document contains 48 pages.
- 40 of those pages have a month and year on the footer
- 8 pages (with no particular pattern), don’t bother having a month and year on the footer
- 26 contain the date “December 2022” in the footer
- 14 contain the date “November 2022” in the footer
- There was a December 2022 released version of CAP 722B – see “CAP 722B amendment sheet” above
- There was NO November 2022 released version of CAP 722B
- None of the footers contain a “May 2022” date
Some examples below:

CAP 722B pages 5 and 10
Why does nobody complain?
I can think of a few explanations. One would be that RAEs have seen this and already complained. However, I speak to a few RAEs and despite the CAA’s best efforts at being “communicative”, that tends to be a one-way street. Sound familiar?
Another could be that RAEs have been conditioned not to complain. Matt Williams of UAVHub had the nerve to put his head above the parapet once and this is what happened.
Whatever the reason, this issue was flagged to me at the weekend and I thought it would be wrong not to bring it to the attention of the regulator and Eyeup’s faithful followers.
What now?
Just one suggestion to the CAA, so they can maintain some sort of industry credibility. Please just fix this. Don’t hide the fact that you’ve fixed it….we know it’s happened now. Update the document to V4.1 or 5 or whatever your coffee-time chat deems appropriate. But don’t let new entrants to the sharp end of the industry witness this level of incompetence any longer.