Drones

I am a licensed UAV Pilot and the first thing that I would like to point out is that the terminology is incorrect. A drone is a device or vehicle that acts autonomously receiving its instructions from programming or machine code. What we are discussing here is unmanned aerial vehicles that are under the control of a remote pilot. That puts the onus on an individual to be properly trained and to understand the risks and operational limitations of the Unmanned Aerial Systems. 

I can understand peoples concerns for the unlicensed and uncontrolled use of unmanned systems, especially in built-up areas. However, we already have in place regulations and controls the govern the use of UAV's in these areas and we have increasingly strict controls around airports and prisons. Increasing regulation only penalises those people who are acting responsibly. I agree that there should be a mandatory registration of drones and the ADBS technology for aircraft tracking should be introduced on UAV's so that they can safely share airspace with manned vehicles.

Safety concerns aside, I have witnessed first hand where UAV's have made it safer for people by carrying out an inspection of dangerous structures, do work at height that removes the risk to human life and the ability to map terrain and model structures in this information age. They have in many places replaces larger manned aircraft in aerial reconnaissance and mapping. If we are to turn a blind eye to the possibilities we are ignoring the inevitable benefits of this technology. 

There once was a time when a man had to walk in front of a motor vehicle holding a red flag to warn others about the 'impending danger' of the motorised carriage. Just think how ridiculous that scene now looks and apply the same lof=gic to the banning of remote piloted aircraft.

I have no issues with registered users (police / fire / surveyors / film and media) operating in a safe way.

I do have a problem with unmanned multiples used for supply of goods, or the dutch idea of sending defibrillators. The logistics of navigating and relaying visuals to a control room will be costly.

We have many sensitive targets, where privacy can be invaded and a number of prisions and flight areas for the surrounding airports.

If they are allowed to be commonplace then they will be ignored and a route to deliver any sort of payload.

Or we will see many public building swayved in pigeon nets to prevent approach

Commercial [electric] drones have the potential to take traffic off the streets and in particuar those noisy polluting and badly driven food delivery mopeds. The risk from computer controled drones is far less than the pollution and accident rates of two wheeled vehicles and could really revolutionise delivery services in London.

I recently came across a marketing group practising flying their drones over Hackney marshes. I found it intrusive, noisy and disturbing to the birds flying near 

I have no objections to NHS use, licenced by an elected body g. However, use of drones by anyone who feels like it is highly intrusive, and has massive privacy implications .

absolutely unnecessary toys and gadgets used by criminals to deliver drugs to prisons? used at airports to destroy travel and interrrupt journeys- why are these idiotic things flying in our cities?

As a toy it was a fun idea- but we don't need or want these things - someone who lived accross the park from me used one regularly in the early hours of the morning - it hit my window in the bedroom- what was he doing? spying on me- using a camera to record people in bed at night? My dog naturally was awoken and alarmed and barked like fury and was inconsolable (much I am sure to the neighbours' delight- I would not have had a clue if I had not seen the hovering thing myself when going to the window to look out, and I have no proof where it came from as it was the back of a house somewhere behind me - the only one with lights on- but it left a small crack in the window glass of my house.  The police do nothing- they would not take it seriously. Someone flying a drone at bedroom windows at night is obviously a nuisance and possibly if a camera is attached using it for no good purpose- we used to call people peeping Toms. Ban them other than the toys that have no camera and no distance to fly. 

Just another gimmick for the high earners to spend on!  Those that interrupt planes and delay flights at airports deserve to go to prison. How about not being able to buy a drone without insurance to protect those inconvenienced by them??

I dont really mind what the application is BUT it must be approved by the rules and regulations set by a democratically elected official, or his/her appointees, such as London Mayor or London Borough Leader; probably best on a city-wide or national basis.

While there is a small risk from lightweight drones hitting someone or more seriously from distracting drivers if they were perhaps flown low over a busy road, the real risk is intrusion and loss of privacy both from private use and from use by the police and local authorities. Their official use other than for traffic surveillance and similar uses should be heavily controlled and require the same level of oversight and permitting as is required to obtain a search warrant- no warrant and the information gathered should be inadmissable in court. Sooner or later, amazon and others will want to use these for delivery and this is the main area of both opportunity and risk of nuisance. Such use may well take vans off the roads but they need to be quiet enough and clever enough that we don't all have to wear crash helmets when walking down the pavement.

I have seen people flying drones in my local park and in near by streets. I think they are dangerous and very intrusive and should be banned in cities and towns. I am absolutely not in favour of drones being used by members of the public as a hobby or a form of amusement in any situation apart from inside their own property. 

I fully support it.

Could the Thames corridor become a London 'Drone Gateway" with semi-automated drop off micro hubs en route. Customers then collect on foot, or the last mile with use of cargo e-bikes, or land based automatous vehicle?  

Access along controlled drone flight corridors strictly licenced with a separate CAA/aviation security controlled management. If successful, then other drone corridors could be created.  Plus, if passenger drones are used from Heathrow to London, the Thames could be a potential route into London.

Also, lots of commuter trains run close to empty during the day off peak in London. Off peak, reserve one railway carriage for parcel cargo use**, with supported last mile delivery’s as above, with collection/distribution hubs at stations.  (** but may need specialist cargo loading areas on platforms).

Presumably they will be guided by GPS but the risk of vandalism, theft, damage, threat of injury to people and animals etc means they will probably need to be fitted with a camera. So there are privacy issues. As for deliveries they will be useless for people in a flat or with no garden. My neighbour might like the idea of having deliveries dropped off in his garden but why should I put with the noise? And who will want a package dropped off in a garden? Risk of theft? Rain? Damage to plants, lawn, furniture, buildings etc?  

Quite frankly the idea is preposterous for city dwellings. It might be good on a ranch in the midwest (assuming it has the range) or in someones vast back garden in Silicon Valley but not in here. 

As for people carriers drones would never replace roads and public or private transport as a means of mass transport.

Elevating traffic jams and congestion to the skies is no answer or solution to our transport problems.

Time to stop dreaming of these whacky ideas. 

Invest in electric or hydrogen powered vehicles that have built in speed limiters for the local area and enforced gaps between vehicles.

I'm against  unless legal and electronic systems are in place to monitor and control them.  At the moment the risk from misuse by criminals or terrorists is too great.  We are far away from being able to detect and disable them in an emergency.

However they could be useful for crime detection and prevention by Police and authorities.

Personall I find them a nuisance , spoiling nature and public spaces with their noise and distraction.

Do we really want massive companies like Amazon filling our skies so they can increase their profits even further??  Just another negative in terms of quality of life.

So its a NO from

UAVs flying around populated areas should be flown by a licensed pilot, or else by a licensed autonomous software system. As long as there is some oversight, I don't have a problem with it.

I don't think the chief risk of UAVs is damage. The chief risk is irritation, invasion of privacy and facilitation of commiting crime. As long as they are operated professionally, I think we will have very little problem adjusting.

I think there is serious cause for concern - drones are extremely noisy and intrusive, and aside from the ample possibilities for their misuse I think they would be an unpleasant addition to London life. Some preliminary studies have even shown they disturb/stress out wildlife, and tbh they would stress me out too.

Using them for life-saving deliveries would be a big plus, but the right to privacy and peace and quiet are under attack enough as it is. And that's not even considering the wider dangers others have mentioned.

I would only want them to be used where nothing else can do the job, and away from people and wildlife. And quite honestly, I would much rather have a postman deliver my packages than a drone. 

While I do support their use by hospitals and other state agencies (the weather forecast, the agriculture department, the emergency services), I vehemently oppose the selling of drones to private individuals. They are ugly to look at, dangerous, can easily be used for mischievous purposes an a large number of them would require enhanced training and traffic control - thus defeating the purpose of speed drones offer. Therefore they must be a no-no for private citizens - who do not need any more technological toys than the ones they already have

Some good pionts already made. Mike Solomons identifies the risks well. SouthLondonKid's suggestions too severe, in my view.

I think

1. All drones need registering and allowed for limited applications. eg work (photography, surveying etc); hobby; delivery. Limits to include size limitation.

2. They need an identification signature (electronic I would imagine, but I don't know about the tech involved), so Police etc can get the id of the drone.

3. Owners must be insured for public libility

4. Rules to be in force about geographical limits with exclusions to central London, concert venues, tourist destinations unless individual licences are obtained (for professional purposes).

5. Pilots must have a licence to fly drones. 

I work in Business Continuity and just from a terrorism aspect this is not something I would want, white powder alerts and I guess they could potentially if not already be armed.

Airport disrupts caused by drones have already been highlighted as a major risk.

Drones could be very useful and there is much hype over their potential use. There seems to be a great deal of confusion about the current law on such items with many seeming them as toys rather than aircraft. The definition of aircraft has no minimum size, just variations depending on size.

Looking at this in a London centric way I do not see much need for the urgent delivery of medical supplies, the current method of using motorcycles etc with blue lights seems to work quite well. The same probably cannot be said for more rural areas. 

I think the scope for personal transport is also very limited. There will need to be places set aside for take off and landing otherwise Trafalger Square will become chaotic with all those arriving for and evening up west. There is also the fact tha flying helicopter like craft near to large buildings is extremely difficult due to the gusting winds in random directions.

I have no issues with the emergency services, using trained operators, using them. I have heard that lives have been saved already else where by the timely use of drones by police controls. Such use has to be tightly controlled with clear rules and targets for each flight. There is probably scope for for their use to enhance or replace some helicopter use.

The main problems with mass use of drones will be air traffic control. The more there are, the more opportunity there will be for collisions. This needs to be dealt with before delivery services are allowed to use them. The other issue will be noise. This is dealt with in standard aircraft by having minimum flying heights. My understanding is that at least some drones will fly below this level. This will give real concerns about noise levels as well as invasion of privacy.

I am not sure that there is a burning need to have most retailers deliver goods that fast that they need a fleet of drones.

Drones have many valuable uses from pure fun to important security work.

HOWEVER, they are sold on the open market and many end up in the hands of utterly inapporproate users, from children to psycopathic vandals and stupid louts. The threat they cause to us ALL as Londoners is that one day a drone WILL bring a plane down on top of US. That means killing not only those on board but Londoners below, not to mention inestimable property damage. And its only a matter of time before terrorists start using them. Hamas have already done that out of Gaza to attack its neighbours.

We saw the costly and deeply disruptive mayhem caused recently at Gatwick Airport and the numbers of 'near misses' being reported arising from drones being flown close to aircraft is at record levels and climbing.

Are we going to wait for innocent deaths before we step in and stop this scourge? Because it WILL happen and the blood of our innocents will be on the hands of the authorities who failed to act to protect us.