Drones

The conduct of drones is already regulated by the UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) - see their website for details. They limit how high drones can go & how near to buildings. I think the limits were being increased around airports after the recent Gatwick events.

However, burglars, terrorists and activists are unlikely to read & follow a set of rules! The current rules would mke it impossible for drones to deliver packages to homes, too.

On balance, I feel that the air is too crowded above London for them to be safe (cables, trees etc), noise and privacy may be issues - and it would be safer to deliver parcels by existing ground methods. It may be different in the countryside!

Nicki

just not that keen on the thing buzzing around, OK for some surveiallnce in emergency situation, but nothing is that urgent for delivery

People think regulations are the answer to everything. Its spoiling it for hobbyists and one off flights that don't effect anybody.

The purchase of a drone should be possible only with a licence and authorisation. All drones should have a recognisable code that will tell who the owner is. Exactly as it's for wepons. Private drones should also be recognisable at a distance from public ones (police, hospital, fire brigate etc) for privacy and security reasons. It's like when a car goes too fast on a road, it's ok if it's the police or an ambulance, it's not ok if it's a normal car. If a drone from a hospital flies on my garden I don't mind, if it's a private drone I do.

Drones should all have GPS and should be monitored the same way it happens with airplanes. This way all flying drones should be authorised and monitored and if there is a none authorised drone flying it could be immediatley tracked and eventually shot. Also, if a private drone is not used appropriately, it's possible to make a complaint to the monitoring service and by giving them the place and time they will able to track the owner and act accordingly.

drone licences to fly should only be issued to fully public services, such as NHS, police, fire, local government. these should be regulated to ensure that flights are necessary in the public interest and that they do not constitute a nuisance in terms of noise, invasion of privacy or any other distress to those who are overflown. 

No private organisations or individuals should be allowed to fly drones over our homes or countryside. that includes companies or individuals who have contracts outsourced by public bodies. 

I can see the potential for using drones in situations where it is impossible or dangerous for a human being to access a place or an event, such as a toxic fire.  However, I can also see the dangers of drones in the wrong hands, such as criminals (we have already seen them being used to deliver drugs and mobiles to prisoners) or terrorists.  Ordinary people going about their business have no way of knowing where a drone is from and have no way of avoiding them: there is a real danger that children or people with disabilities could be hit by a drone.  It seems to me that drones should be seen as aircraft and should be subject to the same strict regulation.  Users must be licensed and vetted, and every drone flight must be capable of being monitored so that the user knows where it is and what it is doing as all times.  Users must also be in control of a drone, so that it can respond to commands to avoid accidents.  While I am not against drones being used to replace monotonour tasks, I am worried about them taking away jobs from people unless a better alternative job is made available to them.  The idea of streets full of drones delivering the post and other items is frightening - the potential dangers far outweigh the benefits.  I cannot see any real benefit to drones being available as toys.  No-one seems to know whether the drones that brought Gatwick to a standstill last Christmas were being used recreationally or by terrorists. However, the effect is the same.  Some people are prepared to disrupt aircraft (eg by using lasers) for "fun" and people who are in dispute with someone could use a "toy" drone to harass them.  So, on balance, I am favour of the emergency services using drones, but am concerned about them being available for commercial or recreational use because of the dangers they pose.

Only allow for defined and registered users who have given the code for controlling the drone. Only for emergency uses over London or for tasks which cannot easily be done by other means. Drawbacks are still more noise in a noisy city, still more intrusions on my privacy as if helicopters weren't enough. Not to be used for fun.

I think extending any drone operations outside of emergency service use, to be both dangerous and impractical at this time...

Let's move forward.  In the City we have this habit of cautious change.  The results are slowly implemented congestion charges and bike lanes, etc.  Let's get ahead of the game on this one.   It will cut down on the volume of traffic and flow from delivery vehicles making short stops, etc.  Obviously there are safety issues that need to be addressed.  We need to work with the national government, but we should take the initiative. We should also have large companies which are likely have sigificant use the drone service we in the middle of the discussions.  Let's make the City the example of smart, pro-active government.

Do not introduce drone without having reliable ways to stop/capture in emergency situation.

Gatwick & Heathrow were affected because thehre's no way to tackle a handful of rogue drones (that no-one has even managed to take a decent photo?)

Either by malice or accident, it can easily collide with helicopters (air ambulance/traffic monitor/police), collide with buildings, even people outside.

Drone can be useful in principle, but I feel its safety measures are somewhat premature to be introduced for frequent use.

As technology improves, and with a sensible, law abiding pilot flying under fit-for-purpose regulations, the use of UAVs has amazing potential.

For those people who are talking about weaponized drones, no amount of legislation will stop that from happening as those wishing to disable gps or remove a ident tag, will find a way to do it.

Remember, it not the drone that is at fault, it is the intention of the pilot, in the same way that a gun isnt dangerous until someone pulls the trigger or car isnt dangerous until the person driving it runs someone over.

The CAA has had rules and regulations regarding UAVs for a good few of years. This includes writing your own operating manual for your aircraft, and keeping detailed flight logs of battery usage, equipment carried, etc, all on top of flight operation training.

I occasionally work with qualified UAV pilots and the are very poffessional, know their stuff and complain about how much paperwork they have to produce, so the authorities are already on the case.

I also have friends who fly as a hobby. They are not governed by the same rules as professional pilots, but there are rules and they are always in a wide open space, away from the public, animals & buildings, ie, sensible flyers.

The Gatwick incident was not the actions of a sensible flyer, and it is always these kind of pilots we hear stories about, not the ones where pilots have hovered over a fire and relayed pictures to the fire service because that doesn't make a sensational news story.

In my opinion, with suitable regulations and properly trained pilots, the positives of drone use outweighs the negatives.  

However, there does need to be a way to deal with rogue operators that doesn't involve an item fixed to the aircraft that could be disabled.

The issue is not the drone its the flyer.

 Drones are a public And private nuisance and should be banned

having been caught up in the drone business at gatwick in december when i was going on my pre xmas holiday both outward and return journey i am worried that the police cant seem to pinpoint the operators of these things despite all the resources the govt has. i dont see any drones in my daily life. i see the occassional one in forest clearing near me but thankfully not many. i think they should be licenced and operators requiring a permit and training. 

Drones use by private and public companies and organisations for deliveries of any kind except rare vital emergency services use should be banned. Emergency services use should only be allowed if each drone use can be monitored by security services or police.  There is already far too much use of them for filming - it should be very strictly limited to protect people and wildlife from the noise and intrusion.  It simply is not safe to allow even licensed drones use.

I don’t want the police or government EVER to have access to them but no problem with private individuals or bodies like utilities using them

I am concerned about the misuse of drones, for example around airports or as a nuisance around private space, gardens or near windows. But I can see they can be useful for emergencies, surveying, professional filming and the delivery of goods or emergency supplies. They can reach inaccessable places (high buildings for example) or used to locate casualties or lost individuals including children. They may become a useful policing tool. I am sure more uses will be discovered but some regulation may be required.

London is busy and noisy enough without adding drones into the mix with their disturbing and threatening buzzing.

I am also extremely concerned about the implications for privacy, as many have cameras that could spy into people’s homes.

Finally, I think they could pose a danger if they were to fall out of the sky and hit someone.

In short, I would regulate them very strictly and only allow their use for specific local purposes where the operator maintains line of sight, e.g. roof surveys after the sign-off of all residents.

With proper regulation,it should be used