Drones

They should be licensed and 3rd party insured. I also think they must have a radar transponder like aircraft because you cannot rely on pilots seeing them in time to take avoiding action. With recent cases of drones crashing in Switzerland, one nearly landing in a nursery school play area, I wonder if they should be on dedicated flight paths when out of sight of the operator. With a fixed wing aircraft, if you have engine failure they will normally glide and the pilot has a chance of a safe landing. Emergency service helicopters are required to have 2 engines if they are flying over a built up area and even a single engine one can be landed using auto gyration by the pilot. It seems if a drone looses power, they either hope a parachute will deploy or it crashes. They just seem to dangerous at the moment to fly in automatic mode.

With all these "advances" powers that be have failed to address the complexities that arise.

Why driveless cars? Why all electric cars, what not fuel fuel with gas?

Now drones flying around with no rules and regulations,  or more commonly no resources to combat spying or causing air traffic havoc

Or resources to combat this.

It's all to do with money and profit. The 

Sooner the London Mayor and influential  people think about people rather than money, the better.

It is obvious taxes have to be raised slightly but non of the political parties will do this because they would have to give back the 5% tax cut Mr. Obsborne gave the wealthy!

I think everybody should read this recent piece in the Financial Times - discussing Amazon drones but applies universally.

https://medium.com/financial-times/amazons-ai-drones-are-not-a-technolo…

They are noisy - so noisy that they terrify animals as well as people. The only way to control them would be via an air traffic control system, which would be so complex, once the skies are full, that it would have to be automated and thus vulnerable to hacking and bugs. The chances of collision, with debris and whatever they are carrying raining down, would be high. Their use for surveillance is unacceptable for many obvious reasons. There is no justification for using them for deliveries in a built up area. The only circumstance in which I can imagine justifying them would be in an emergency, to get access to, or monitor, the scene of a fire or a disaster of some other kind where it's not safe for humans to be.

And all of the previous comment applies.

I see drones as practical for the utilities and emergency services. When the volume of oother uses for the drones is brought into the discussion drones then become not fit for purpose. Invasive, high risk to the public, rights of passage will need to be granted, thus making them totally impractical. Devices are readily available to bring down the drones in respect of the above, of which I suspect, will be the major problem?

I think that any initaitve that can assist in the reduction of vehicular transport on our roads needs careful consideration and I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate.  

1) Hobbyist use of drones - these should not be restricted - existing laws seem fine and the benefits for filiming and enthusiasts should not be curtailed.

2) Use of drones by emergency services - I don't see a downside to this - if it improves security, saves lives and prevents damage to property or loss of life I'm all for them.

3) Commercial uses - for filming and recording inspections of buildings I don't see a problem and I am supportive. 

4) Commercial uses for delivery - I think that the practicality of delivering goods in this manner is harder to achieve than the reality.  Landing and take off in residential areas requires a great deal of accuracy, needs to avoid trees, lamposts etc and needs to know the correct address.  It also needs to the users to be in and collect the packages.  Will they be so large - van sized that take many deliveries or smaller to take individual packages - in which case there will be many deliveries.

5) Commercial use for transport - I do have concerns about this.  I can understand providing drone landing pads on high rise office buildings - but where will they take off and land in suburban areas - into parks or above existing underground stations?  Will they fly over houses or along existing road networks?  What height will they fly at - tall enough to avoid looking into residential windows?  Whilst this may appear convenient I think it has the opportunity to adversley affect peoples day to day lives.  It is better to to provide safer means of ground level transport such as cycling or ebikes that mean it is safer and cleaner to travel around the City.  I would also tax deliveries into ULEZ from Amazon directly. 

I a street of terraced houses and purpose built flats and drones are a real invasion of privacy. People fly them to check their own properties (or own them) but I've seen them flying near my own home and it's like being burgled!!

They are very noisy and privacy invading.  I would not want my deliveries made by drones. I would be very unhappy to have them flying around the streets at all hours. 

I personally do not see the necessity for parcels to be delivered by drone.  I certainly would not consider using them as private transport.

The police should be responsible for upholding the law when it comes to problems that are occurring live and are intermittent. The LA enforcement teams are terrible, under-resourced (I know everyone is) and really don't have the clout that police officers have. The Police on the other hand operate at all hours and when they turn up in uniform people know they cannot take the piss.

With regards to drone deliveries, my feeling is that they should largely be limited to flying within certain corridors, perhaps directly over main roads. Perhaps even to the point that they only make deliveries to certain parcel collection points. Together, these measures would greatly minimise the concerns over privacy.

Sbashorun Msn.Com | Community Member | 6 hours ago   "Drone noise or privacy concerns?   Noise is already cover by current Environmental laws and regulations.  Regular excessive noise from low flying 'vehicles' should be reported to the LA Environmental Dept and the operator."

LA environment depts. vary in their noise nuisance services, some are minimal. The best in central London has recently been downgraded, and barely functions compared to its previous level of service.  Existing laws are inadequate anyway, and without police support for tackling the often aggressive and recalcitrant noise-makers, LA officers can do little to prevent noise nuisance. For example, central London residents have suffered from intolerable noise every evening and night of the year, for about 15 years, from pedicabs with sound systems blasting noise into their homes for hours on end.   Police will do nothing, LA officers need police with them to take action.   Buskers noise nuisance is another unstoppable problem. The costs of stopping and preventing noise pollution at health-damaging levels is too high for LAs and police forces.   It is unlikely that LAs or police have any jurisdiction over noisy machines in the air. 

Until the UK has efficient and effective noise nuisance legislation, plus sufficient funding for efficient and effective policing, and effective levels of fines and other penalties, there should be NO MORE sources of noise nuisance added to the environment. 

Fully agree - that all mechanical innovations that aid humankind are 'bad'. Let's go back to chipping flint to make stone implements once more.  Ah! Them were the days.

In my opinion, I believe, Drones have good and not so good issues. They can be a life saver and a destroyer. One cannot stop on technology, without it there is no way of going forward, however I have a drone but cannot use it due to being close to Airport, should local council allocate various areas where drones can be flown safely with supervision and advise I believe it would stop a lot of complaints on invading people's privacy, and allowing to fly safely. 

Drones are fun and they have practical uses, there is no question.

However, the fact is that not all users of drones are responsible, adult, honest, sensible, skilled, trained and/or licensed. Far from it, in fact.

They DO have the capability of bringing down an aircraft, by accident or design, be used for covert observation of people and private property and for other more sinister and dangerous purposes, including murderous terrorism. They are affordable by almost anybody and they cannot be monitored or policed with currently available technology.

A drone will, I fear, eventually bring down a plane over, say central London. It is only a matter of time. The result will be beyond catastrophic and they will then be banned. But the authorities will be responsible for not having acted preemptively. 

I am no killjoy - quite the opposite, in fact - but these now proliferating devices are simply too dangerous to be available in the way they are and, as the recent Gatwick debacle demonstrated, can cause major problems to huge numbers of people plus very serious cost which ultimately, we will all be bearing.

I do not think using drones to replace delivery services is practical - the ecological benefits would be outweighed by the nuisance and the risk of accidents.  Also, many jobs would be lost.  If drones were to be used commercially, they would have to be licensed and regulated, and there would need to be a regulator to deal with complaints. Money would need to be found to pay for all that, I am against their commercial use.

Drones could be useful for the emergency services, although safety issues would need to be considered.  They would need to be identifiable, like ambulances or police cars, and audible so that people could see and hear them and avoid being in their way.  They could also be useful to the police in a number of situations, e.g. assessing a potentially dangerous situation, or countering illegal use of drones by criminals. Firefighters might be able to use them to check whether anyone was inside a burning building, rather than the firefighter risking his./her life.  Drones might also be useful for the medical profession, for instance for the quick delivery of organs for transplant, or for delivery of specialist equipment to an accident scene.

Using small electric helicopters for transport sounds expensive and has the potential for causing nuisance.  Also helicopters need somewhere safe to land and take off. On the other hand, they could be useful for people with mobility problems who find it difficult to use public transport.  For example, they might be useful for taking such people to and from hospital out-patient appointments, or to visit loved ones in hospital or in residential care, or on other essential journeys.  I would not favour their commercial use, as they would have all the disadvantages of drones, only more so.  Also, I believe only the rich would be able to afford to use them,

.

As a retired teacher-artist I fully support the innovative use of drones for private and commercial use and operation. One aspect where drones has facilitated ‘private hobbyist drone enthusiasts’ is aerial photography and video and film making creativity. You only have to view examples of such creative drone photography to be totally in awe of what can be achieved in the creative field with operation of a camera attached to a drone that might skip over mountains and sea or dip down into valleys and ‘scurry’ about in ‘gardens of delight’ as if mimicking bee or bird flight. Of course, there are aspects of safety and security to be aware of in drone operation where in flight they may compromise busy airfields and other vehicular areas. Otherwise, I would be extremely dismayed if because of ignorant and fuddy-duddy attitudes private hobbyist’s drones were curtailed or had drastic laws associated to usage as to make hobbyist operation completely not worthwhile. Please let’s celebrate this wonderful innovation of accessible technology that can bring delight to their users and owners able to afford ‘their new technological toy’.          

I think there is a case for using drones for emergencies and vital services but I'm absolutely against there use by private individuals or for commercial use.

We need to make our environment feel less threatening and invasive. Drones invade the air space and do not respect private space and definitely represent a threat to the peace and sense of well being that most residents of London feel is desirable and the their right.

I hope the London mayor will take the threat posed by drones seriously. 

Please can we stop the hysteria about drones! First there are hobby drones which include model aircraft and helicopters which have an impeccable record over 40 years and are insured under the BMFA (British Model Flying Association) which regularly consult with the CAA and only fly in safe areas. Leave these alone! Then there are the criminal / terrorist element who will not care about restrictions or regulations so don't penalise the honest hobbyist by talking about baning everything in the vain hope it will make a difference. Look at Gatwick, do you think the drone pilot cared about laws. Finally we have the commercial use of drones, this is a totally separate subject and will have to be regulated and routes will have to be carefully agreed to avoid disruption or harm to people and property. It is unlikely you will every see them flying down the street. There is a huge amount of information out there, so please try to make informed and well considered statements and not just knee jerk reactions which have no foundation in the facts.

i agree with the recommendations written by Pafraser65 | Community Member | 2 weeks ago. However, the issues omitted is that of privacy, insurance and control. 

1.  The built up nature of metropolis necessitates drones traversing inhabited areas.

How do we prevent intrusion by unwanted voyeurism?  Perhaps common use drones should have a very limited camera facility, i.e. fixed focus - enough to manoeuvre but unable to focus on detail at height.

2. Accidents will happen.

As with other forms of ‘transportation’ accidents will occur. Therefore owner/operators must carry a mandatory insurance for each drone they operate or cause or allow to be operated. 

3. Traffic congestion  

As with other ‘aircraft’ there should be zones or corridors traversing the metropolis in which the drones are all flying in the same direction. There also needs to be a form of air traffic control complete with the requirement to register flights plans and maintain accurate flight logs. It would make sense for CAA to lead on this matter. 

 Yes and no.   I already have aircraft over my home most of the time.  Thanks to the mayor for allowing the expansion of City airport.  I have HR & City at the same time.  The concentration from 4000m to 500m of the arrival corridor is also a problem.

Drones would make that even worse, but they could help with another problem, builders and people who like to burn the wrong things at the  wrong times.  It would be perfect for the officers to put a drone up and find and record the problem.  The same would be true of noisy parties etc.    The law for parties could be changed now to allow police and council personnel to tackle these things without neighbours needing to request it, or, more stupidly still, needing to witness the party or smoke from the neighbour's home.  That makes them easy targets for intimidation, especially by menacing looking young men holding parties with a dj and industrial speakers in domestic gardens until six am or longer.

So, like all tools available to us:  Use them well and they're a boon, badly and they're a problem.