blog<\/a>, reaching a conclusion that whilst it would undoubtedly be highly beneficial, the UK market was not sufficiently developed for its implementation.\u00a0 In our responses to the consultation submitted on behalf of the Drone Alliance Europe, we argued in favour of Option 3.\r\n\r\nThe majority of the responses came back split between Option 1 and Option 2. \u00a0Normally, this would be the impetus for finding a middle ground, or for Option 3, allowing more time to reach a mutually agreeable solution.\r\n\r\nInstead, the government cited those that voted for Option 3 as a makeweight to give justification for an \u201coverall preference for the introduction of a registration scheme\u201d. \u00a0If this is how the question is interpreted, what was the point of having three options? \u00a0Surely a simple yes\/no would have provided more clarity.\r\n\r\nWith the exception of registration, the remaining eight rule changes align for the most part with consultation responses.\u00a0 For instance, in our responses to the consultation, we made certain to emphasise the importance of education in ensuring both practical operation and safety.\u00a0 We recommended a wider distribution of the CAA\u2019s Dronecode and improvement of the coherence of the 2016 Air Navigation Order. \u00a0On these matters the government is in agreement, prioritising education over deterrents.\r\n\r\nHowever, the July announcement went a step further, introducing mandatory user safety awareness courses. \u00a0Whilst this may well bring negative side effects such as discouraging civil purchases, it at least shows the government\u2019s commitment to education over regulation.\r\n\r\nAnother promising sign is the government\u2019s willingness to collaborate with industry stakeholders in order to develop the fields of insurance, UTM, and electronic identification. \u00a0We made it abundantly clear in our consultation responses that this would be vital when developing national and European architectures for UTM and drone insurance. \u00a0Alongside the Drone Industry Action Group, the government intends to launch a \u2018drone insurance project group\u2019 in order to adequately develop this policy area.\r\n\r\nFinally, and most decisively, the government showed, for now at least, that it was willing to aid industry growth by avoiding over-regulation.\u00a0 With the exception of the registration issue, the government\u2019s response agreed with our position that a \u2018wait and see\u2019 approach is the best way forward on uncertain issues such as pilot licensing and drone identification.\r\n\r\nAside 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.\u00a0 First, the UK government seems genuinely committed to its goals of stimulating the drone economy whilst ensuring safety and laying foundations for the future. \u00a0Second, it proves that the industry is largely on the same page, in its opinion that smart (read, \u2018not hasty\u2019) regulation is required, as was expressed in our responses to the consultation.\r\n\r\nMaintaining 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.\r\n\r\nNOTE:\u00a0 Aviation Advocacy previously acted for the Drone Alliance Europe.\u00a0 It no longer does so.\u00a0 The opinions in this piece are those of Aviation Advocacy.","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"In late July the UK government announced that all drones over 250g would have to be registered by their owners. \u00a0This new rule was part of a response to a Department for Transport public consultation that was issued last winter. The consultation, entitled \u201cUnlocking the UK’s High Tech Economy: \u00a0Consultation on the Safe Use of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,19,18,30,31],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-723","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-air-traffic-management","category-drones-and-uavs","category-safety","category-unmanned-aircraft-system-traffic-management","category-utm"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/723","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=723"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/723\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":724,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/723\/revisions\/724"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=723"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=723"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=723"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}