Consultation outcome

Skytyping and skywriting legalisation: outcome and summary of responses

Updated 17 April 2020

Introduction

On 16 March 2020, the Department for Transport (the department) launched a public consultation seeking views on legalising skytyping and skywriting as additional forms of aerial advertising activities in the UK.

Skytyping is an aerial activity that delivers a line of text in the sky, visible from the ground, made by a group of aeroplanes flying in a line abreast formation emitting smoke at coordinated intervals in a similar way to a dot matrix printer.

Skywriting is an aerial activity by an aeroplane flying to create curves and lines of smoke which have the appearance of letters or symbols from the ground.

Currently the ‘Civil Aviation (aerial advertising) regulations 1995’ (regulation 4) does not permit the practice of skytyping or skywriting, however the display of any mark or inscription on a banner towed behind any aeroplane is allowed. The present provision was introduced in 1960 when aerial advertising was prohibited on the grounds of inadequate aircraft safety and technical skills by pilots, which have now internationally been shown as not valid. These activities are currently permitted and practised in many countries, including Australia, France, Spain, the Middle East, South Africa, China and Japan. The most developed market is in the United States.

The consultation was published in line with the government’s general aviation strategy 2015 and the commitment to reduce the regulatory burden on general aviation so it can allow the sector to flourish. The department first consulted on the principle of this change in the green paper ‘Aviation 2050’ published in December 2018. As outlined in both documents the department believes there are potential commercial benefits to enabling these activities in the UK.

Through the consultation, the department invited views on a range of topics related to these aerial activities including: safety, emissions, noise, visual intrusion and commercial impact.

Following central government guidance, the consultation ran for two weeks, closing on 29 March 2020. This shorter duration was deemed proportionate given the previous consultation in 2018 and the single proposition outlined. The department received a total of 93 responses from members of the public, trade bodies, registered companies and other respondents.

Table 1: breakdown of responses across key groups

Types of groups	Number of responses
Individuals	80
Registered company	2
Trade body	3
Other	8

Total: 93

Executive summary

The department was pleased to receive over 90 responses to the consultation and is grateful for the time that individuals and organisations took to provide considered responses, which provide helpful insights to policy development.

In summary, there were a number of positive responses to the consultation, particularly in terms of the commercial benefits that legalisation of skytyping and skywriting might provide. These included the views:

• that a number of UK pilots currently perform skytyping and skywriting activities abroad, mainly in the EU and China, and would be ready to deliver services in the UK if the law is changed – supporting jobs and growth in the UK. This in turn would generate further benefits down the supply chain
• skytyping and skywriting could add entertainment and display value to various events, including at mass outdoor gatherings such as music festivals and sporting fixtures; or to enhance existing air displays
• the aerial activities could be used by private individuals as personal messages such as marriage proposals or birthday celebrations, or for public events such as marking royal birthdays or national memorial days – with wider social benefits to individuals and groups
• skytyping and skywriting could help raise the profile of aviation and inspire younger generations to take up a career in aviation, either as pilots or aviation engineers. This would support the government’s objective in the ‘Reach for the Sky’ skills and training programme aimed at making the aviation industry more diverse, inclusive and accessible to all

There were also some negative responses, focussed on issues around emissions, noise and visual intrusion. These included concerns about:

• the impact on emissions and the government’s climate change ambitions, where 19 out of 78 responses outlined these comments
• noise during skywriting and skywriting displays, where 27 out of 40 respondents expressed this view
• visual intrusion during displays, with 15 out of 58 respondents expressing a desire to protect views of the sky

Next steps

The department has considered the responses to the consultation and, whilst recognising some of the issues identified in the consultation responses, believe these are minimal and can be mitigated against, whilst securing the benefits identified.

The department will therefore progress with the following:

• amending the ‘Civil Aviation (aerial advertising) regulations 1995’ to allow the activities of skytyping and skywriting to be lawfully conducted
• updating the ‘Air navigation order 2016’ and other relevant regulations

Secondary legislation will be introduced to give effect to these changes at the earliest opportunity.

Impact

Taking into consideration the department’s impact assessment, research and responses to the consultation, the department believes that on balance allowing skytyping and skywriting activities to be lawfully performed in the UK on a commercial basis will have a relatively low impact on the general public and other airspace users. The benefits and mitigations proposed outweigh the concerns and issues raised as part of the consultation.

There are a number of positive commercial and wider benefits from these activities. However, these aerial activities are expected to be limited in volumes. They depend on the right weather conditions – clear skies and light winds – and given the UK’s climate, a sharp increase in the number of aerial activities of this nature is not anticipated. Furthermore, any aerial activities would need to abide by the relevant regulations – mitigating risks identified around safety and noise.

Responses to questions

This section looks at each question in turn and summarises responses and the department’s considerations. The first 2 questions of the consultation asked for details about the respondent so we start with question 3.

Question 3: Do you have any comments on the way that we have assessed the economic benefits and impacts of these proposals?

Summary of responses to question 3

Agree with the department’s assessment: 12

Agree but stated some reservations or issues: 1

Neither agree nor disagree: 4

Disagree with the department’s assessment: 21

Total number of responses: 38

Of the 38 responses to this question, 21 disagreed with the department’s assessment of the economic benefits and impacts of legalising skytyping and skywriting. The majority of these were from private individuals who had raised concerns that the benefits would be restricted to those paying for the services and the businesses conducting the activities. Other reasons also included views that the advertising would become a public nuisance or would be limited to entertainment value.

On the other hand, there were 12 responses from individuals, others and trade bodies who agreed with the department’s assessment of the benefits and impacts. They noted that there were advertising benefits and commented that skytyping and skywriting would help generate additional jobs and revenue.

Where responses were considered as ‘neither agree nor disagree’, the comments flagged areas such as consumer and business protection where additional measures may be required to supplement advertising restrictions.

The department’s considerations

The department acknowledges that the economic benefits generated as a result of legalising skytypying and skywriting may be modest when compared with other commercial aviation sectors. However, based on the department’s impact analysis, the monetary benefits of skytyping alone are estimated to be around £4 million across a five-year period.

The change would open up a new market for business in the UK, and UK based companies may be incentivised to enter this market and potentially export their services to other European and worldwide locations. With the potential to generate a new market here in the UK, there will be additional benefits for the supporting supply chain such as pilots (by providing them with additional jobs and an alternative source of income), aerodromes, fuel suppliers, aircraft insurance companies, maintenance organisations and so on.

Through reducing the unnecessary legislation and boosting the sector as outlined above, there is potential that this could help the sector recover following the current public health crisis.

In addition, these aerial activities could add entertainment and display value to music festivals, sporting fixtures and air displays, and might even help inspire the next generation of aviation professionals.

Question 4: Do you have any comments on the way that we have assessed the safety risks of these proposals?

Summary of responses to question 4

Agree with the department’s assessment: 6

Agree but stated some reservations or issues: 8

Neither agree nor disagree: 3

Disagree with the department’s assessment: 17

Total number of responses: 34

17 out of 34 responses disagreed with the department’s assessment of the safety risks linked to skytyping and skywriting activities. The main reason noted (mostly by private individuals and others) was concern about danger to pilots and third parties on the ground. Some respondents noted a proliferation in drone use and expressed concerns about collisions between these and aircraft. Another theme was the desire for more regulation, with respondents concerned about “unregulated air displays”.

Where responses fell into ‘neither agree nor disagree’, the comments offered suggestions of how to mitigate risk via “enforcement powers to stop the use of offensive words/phrases” and the use of airspace to minimise the risk of collisions.

Six responses from individuals agreed with the department’s assessment, with one respondent suggesting that existing legislation (the ‘Air navigation order 2016’) “would provide appropriate mitigation.” It was also noted that there could be a “minimal impact to other airspace users or third parties on the ground” although one respondent noted a perception of greater accountability due to airspace supervision.

Two trade bodies also agreed, with one commenting that a safety risk assessment would be necessary.

The department’s considerations

The department acknowledges the concerns raised on safety, and the safety of any aviation activity is a key priority for the department.

As set out in the consultation document, pilots conducting skytyping and skywriting activities would be subject to the relevant requirements within the air navigation order (ANO) 2016 for licensing, including the certificate of airworthiness which has rigorous criteria according to the type of aircraft used. Additional requirements or exemptions may be added into the ANO as deemed necessary for permit to fly aircraft.

Any activities taking place in controlled airspace would need to be coordinated with the appropriate air navigation service provider and the Civil Aviation Authority. Skytyping or skywriting taking place in uncontrolled airspace would require, as a minimum, a NOTAM (notice to air men) to be issued.

Where aerial activities might be conducted over congested areas, these are governed by the requirements for minimum heights as set in the European standardised rules of the air adopted under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 923/2012 and would ensure there are no additional safety risks to third parties on the ground resulting from skytyping and skywriting activities.

In addition, the central London area is separately protected by way of a ban of single-engine aircraft operations as prescribed in UK AIP (ENR 1.1 general rules), point 4.1.7 single-engine fixed wing aircraft over central London.

The department will continue its close engagement with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to ensure any safety concerns are adequately monitored and covered within existing and/or future regulations.

Question 5: Do you have any comments on the way that we have assessed the emissions impacts of these proposals?

Summary of responses to question 5

Agree with the department’s assessment: 4

Agree but stated some reservations or issues: 2

Neither agree nor disagree: 3

Disagree with the department’s assessment: 69

Total number of responses: 78

This topic received the most comments, with 69 of 78 respondents disagreeing with the department’s assessment of the emissions impacts, and some queries about how the department had calculated emissions figures.

Private individuals in particular felt that skytyping and skywriting activities would create more emissions, with many responses referencing this and expressing concerns about the impact of pollution. Some respondents noted there should be more focus on climate change priorities or noted health concerns about lead particulates in the fuel used for skytyping and skywriting activities noting that “there is no other readily available and approved fuel for many aircraft that might be engaged in this activity”.

Three private individuals and a registered company agreed with the department’s assessment. Another respondent also agreed “provided appropriate biodegradable smoke oil is used”.

The department’s considerations

The department acknowledges some of the concerns raised on emissions but believes on balance these impacts should be minimal or can be mitigated against – as set out in the consultation document. There is not expected to be a significant volume of skytyping and skywriting activities, so any impact on emissions is deemed to be minimal.

The messages produced by skytyping and skywriting only last between 3 and 4 minutes, depending on the weather. The mineral oil used in the fluid to create the smoke required has been recognised as the worldwide industry standard for safety and acceptability, and is bio-degradable.

As part of its net zero ambition, the government is encouraging the production and use of sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) and supporting development of green technology. There is potential for GA aircraft, including those used for skywriting and skytyping activities, to provide the basis for progressing the best environment friendly solutions that could in time be deployed for larger aircraft.

The department will keep this policy under review and continue to consider proportionate mitigation such as potential carbon offset charges for displays.

Question 6: Do you have any comments on the way that we have assessed the noise impacts of these proposals?

Summary of responses to question 6

Agree with the department’s assessment: 6

Agree but stated some reservations or issues: 1

Neither agree nor disagree: 0

Disagree with the department’s assessment: 33

Total number of responses: 40

Out of those who disagreed with the Department’s assessment, 27 responses (mainly from private individuals and other respondents) stated that legalising skytyping and skywriting would generate unwarranted noise.

Other respondents that disagreed perceived there to be a risk linked to regulation preventing activity occurring below 7,000ft as stated in the consultation document, noting that “an aeroplane impacts on a massive area below it, not just the event or audience it seeks to address”, alongside potential impacts on mental health.

Seven responses (5 private individuals, a company and another respondent) agreed with the department’s assessment of the noise impacts of legalising skytyping and skywriting.

The department’s considerations

The consultation document outlined the potential noise impacts, noting that 7000ft is the minimum altitude at which aircraft conducting skytyping and skywriting fly at. The department acknowledges that some noise may be generated by aircraft as they fly to reach the minimum altitude, but notes that these impacts should be minimal given the relatively low levels of activity – and where they do arise would be comparable to existing circumstances where similar aerial activities take place.

Where aerial activities might be conducted over congested areas, these are governed by the requirements for minimum heights as set in the European standardised rules of the air adopted under ‘Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 923/2012’.

Question 7: Do you have any comments on the way that we have assessed the visual intrusion impact of these proposals?

Summary of responses to question 7

Agree with the department’s assessment: 6

Agree but stated some reservations or issues: 8

Neither agree nor disagree: 5

Disagree with the department’s assessment: 39

Total number of responses: 58

This question received the second highest number of responses.

Thirty-nine out of 58 responses (mostly from private individuals and others) disagreed with the department’s assessment of visual intrusion and argued that skytyping and skywriting would spoil views of nature. Some respondents commented that the messages produced would be similar to “graffiti in the sky” and that the aerial activities would “diminish from views, tranquillity and recreational enjoyment.”

A number of responses (12 private individuals and 1 other) suggested that alternative and more suitable advertising mechanisms were available.

It was also noted that skytyping and skywriting would negatively impact health and the messages produced could be dangerous and distracting to motorists.

Of those that agreed with the department’s assessment of the visual intrusion impact, they stated skytyping and skywriting would be “inspiring”, “welcome at events” and “fun”. They also noted that the aerial activities would be suitable for “sports matches and public holidays.”

Where responses were considered as ‘neither agree nor disagree’, comments outlined that more regulation was required over the content of the message produced during the activities, stating for example that “additional enforcement powers would be necessary to stop the use of offensive words/phrases.”

The department’s considerations

The department acknowledges some of the concerns raised but believes on balance these impacts should be minimal or can be mitigated against – as set out in the consultation document.

The aircraft producing the messages will be at a minimum altitude of 7,000ft so would be hard to see and are unlikely to be considered a nuisance. Any messages would last for only 3 to 4 minutes depending on weather conditions, so any impacts would be minimal. Offensive or otherwise illegal content would be subject to general criminal law. Depending on the nature of the display, complaints could also be addressed to the Advertising Standards Authority.

Question 8: Do you think there could be any detrimental effects of this proposal to other sectors? If so, which sectors and to what extent?

Summary of responses to question 8

Positive: 6

Positive but stated some reservations or issues: 5

Neither positive nor negative: 5

Negative: 14

Total number of responses: 30

This question received mixed responses, 14 out of 30 responses suggested there could be negative impacts on other sectors. Eleven out of 30 responses suggested there could be positive or broadly positive impacts on other sectors.

On the negative side, some comments noted concerns about the potential “impact on enjoyment of countryside, historic attractions, parks, gardens and cemeteries.”

In addition, some respondents noted concerns that skytyping and skywriting could negatively affect aerial activities currently permitted, such as banner towing and the insurance and farming industries.

Four individuals and 2 companies thought that there would be a positive impact overall. Within this, it was noted that the advertising industry would benefit from the department’s proposal.

Where respondents agreed there would be a positive impact but also stated some reservations, comments included observations that there could be a negative impact on tourism and natural beauty, or that skytyping and skywriting was “unlikely to displace other forms of aerial advertising.”

Where responses were considered as ‘neither positive nor negative’, comments focused on the importance of complying with advertising legislation and that there would be impacts on the community.

The department’s considerations

The department acknowledges some of the concerns raised about impacts on other sectors but believes on balance these impacts should be minimal or can be mitigated against, and that the opportunities, including benefits to customers and the potential for innovation, outweigh the risks.

Question 9: Are you aware of any appetite for undertaking skywriting/skytyping in the UK both by companies that practice it at present overseas or companies that are considering it as a future commercial opportunity?

Summary of responses to question 9

Positive: 7

Positive but stated some reservations or issues: 1

Neither positive nor negative: 0

Negative: 7

Total number of responses: 15

Views on this section were balanced.

Those who were aware of interest from companies interested in these activities were a mix of private individuals, companies and others. They noted that “at least one company satisfied these criteria” and that there are several organisations with “the equipment and expertise to move into the sector.”

Some private individuals were not aware of any companies interested in undertaking skytyping and skywriting activities and one comment also outlined that they thought the legalisation would be “a retrograde step.”

The department’s considerations

Responses to the consultation indicated that there is appetite for conducting skywriting and skytyping activities in the UK from companies currently practicing these activities overseas or those considering it as a future opportunity.

Question 10: any other comments

Table 9: Summary of responses to question 10

Positive: 3

Positive but stated some reservations or issues: 1

Neither positive nor negative: 3

Negative: 21

Total number of responses: 28

Twenty-one out of 28 responses here were against skytyping due to economic or environmental reasons and came from private individuals and others.

Other comments under this section noted the very specific weather conditions needed for these activities, suggested extending the opportunity for “Permit to Fly” aircraft to undertake skytyping and skywriting and how this could be an alternative income source for pilots.

Comments in the ‘neither positive nor negative’ category noted concerns over the timing of the consultation and flagged diminishing resource for regulatory oversight of messages produced during skytyping and skywriting.

The department’s considerations

The department acknowledges the comments made in this section and notes there were no new thematic views expressed here that have not been addressed elsewhere in the consultation response.