A cornucopia of news, opinion, views, facts and quirky bits that need to be talked about. Join our community and join in the conversation on all matters aviation. The blog includes our weekly round-up of the bits of European aviation you may otherwise have missed – That Was The Week That Was
In late July the UK government announced that all drones over 250g would have to be registered by their owners. This new rule was part of a response to a Department for Transport public consultation that was issued last winter.
The consultation, entitled “Unlocking the UK’s High Tech Economy: Consultation on the Safe Use of drones in the UK”, focused on three main priorities: stimulating drone innovation and enterprise; ensuring safe operation within the law; and, laying the foundation for a developed drone market.
Using these priorities as guidelines, nine proposed rule changes have been set out, ranging across drone testing, no fly zones, and registration. Whilst the decision to introduce registration came as no surprise, it was nevertheless an outlier when compared to the other proposals in the consultation.
For the most part, the government’s response follows the consensus of the 678 replies they received; or in the case of the contentious decisions, the responses did that classic public servant move of postponement. However, this was not the case with proposed rule on registration.
The consultation sought input on three registration options:
Option 1: Not to introduce a registration scheme;
Option 2: To introduce a registration scheme in the near future; or
Option 3: To introduce a registration scheme in the longer term.
Over a year ago, we tackled the issue of registration in our blog, reaching a conclusion that whilst it would undoubtedly be highly beneficial, the UK market was not sufficiently developed for its implementation. In our responses to the consultation submitted on behalf of the Drone Alliance Europe, we argued in favour of Option 3.
The majority of the responses came back split between Option 1 and Option 2. Normally, this would be the impetus for finding a middle ground, or for Option 3, allowing more time to reach a mutually agreeable solution.
Instead, the government cited those that voted for Option 3 as a makeweight to give justification for an “overall preference for the introduction of a registration scheme”. If this is how the question is interpreted, what was the point of having three options? Surely a simple yes/no would have provided more clarity.
With the exception of registration, the remaining eight rule changes align for the most part with consultation responses. For instance, in our responses to the consultation, we made certain to emphasise the importance of education in ensuring both practical operation and safety. We recommended a wider distribution of the CAA’s Dronecode and improvement of the coherence of the 2016 Air Navigation Order. On these matters the government is in agreement, prioritising education over deterrents.
However, the July announcement went a step further, introducing mandatory user safety awareness courses. Whilst this may well bring negative side effects such as discouraging civil purchases, it at least shows the government’s commitment to education over regulation.
Another promising sign is the government’s willingness to collaborate with industry stakeholders in order to develop the fields of insurance, UTM, and electronic identification. We made it abundantly clear in our consultation responses that this would be vital when developing national and European architectures for UTM and drone insurance. Alongside the Drone Industry Action Group, the government intends to launch a ‘drone insurance project group’ in order to adequately develop this policy area.
Finally, and most decisively, the government showed, for now at least, that it was willing to aid industry growth by avoiding over-regulation. With the exception of the registration issue, the government’s response agreed with our position that a ‘wait and see’ approach is the best way forward on uncertain issues such as pilot licensing and drone identification.
Aside from the disappointing decision to push ahead with registration before defining the problem it is attempting to solve, there are two clear, positives outcomes that have emerged from the consolation. First, the UK government seems genuinely committed to its goals of stimulating the drone economy whilst ensuring safety and laying foundations for the future. Second, it proves that the industry is largely on the same page, in its opinion that smart (read, ‘not hasty’) regulation is required, as was expressed in our responses to the consultation.
Maintaining a coherent and united approach will make it far easier to negotiate with the government and ensure that the industry is able to fulfill its obvious potential.
NOTE: Aviation Advocacy previously acted for the Drone Alliance Europe. It no longer does so. The opinions in this piece are those of Aviation Advocacy.
