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
Recently we posted an article on the outcome of a consultation on the safe use of drones launched by the UK government. Overwhelming, the headline story was the government’s intention to implement a registration system for drones in the near future. We responded to the consultation in favour of a long-term plan for a considered registration system. Whether it comes sooner or later, we cannot stress enough how vital a registration system will be to the future of the UK drone market.
As the UK consultation noted, the need for registration is closely tied to a need for accountability. With drones flying faster, higher and for longer, their conceivable uses, including delivery, agriculture and law enforcement, increase.
As Voltaire and/or Spiderman’s Uncle famously stated ‘with great power comes great responsibility’, and alongside their new capabilities, these new, more powerful drones have a higher potential for causing damage. This has had a negative impact on public perception; if new forms of commercial drone use are to become reality the public must first be convinced of their own safety and privacy.
A registration scheme is fundamental to two of the dominant plans to improve safety and accountability: identification and insurance. It is hoped that drone registration will do a similar job to vehicle registration numbers, which allows drivers to take out cover and helps authorities to identify law-breakers.
However, by far the overwhelming argument in favour of drone registration is the role that it will play in unmanned traffic management (UTM). The aim of UTM is to safely coordinate simultaneous UAV operations across various providers, taking into account issues like population density, land use and so on. Full integration with manned aviation’s ATM systems is a future goal. Without a national registry of drones, it would be all but impossible for UTM providers to deliver this service.
The UK, in particular, has reason to focus efforts on developing such a system, as their decision to withdraw from the European Union means that they will no longer contribute towards SESAR’s vision for UTM. At a workshop in April this year, SESAR outlined their U-Space project, which is aligned closely with the work being done by NASA and the FAA.
Unsurprisingly, registration is of critical importance to U-Space, and SESAR have moved to create a record of both drones and their operators. During the workshop, it was suggested that there was just a five year window in which to roll out a UTM system before it is done elsewhere. With SESAR aiming to complete ‘Phase 1’ (registration, identification and geofencing) by 2019, the UK may struggle to maintain their market dominance post-Brexit.
Bizarrely, considering the haste to implement registration, the UK government appears less anxious to further any projects that would benefit from it. According to the consultation, electronic identification, another of SESAR’s ‘Phase 1’ priorities is simply ‘under review’, whilst the government is only now initiating a ‘drone insurance project group’. The consultation shows how far off the UK is from initiating any form of UTM system, providing an underwhelming commitment towards ‘continuing to explore the development’.
Considering the need for furthering research, it seems an illogical decision to steam ahead with registration, especially given that, at this point, there is little gain to having the scheme in place. As the UK is not yet at a point where registration is of critical importance, surely it would make sense for the government to use this time researching the best way of implementing such a system.
The UK, in fact, is uniquely placed to conduct extensive research, as two of its closest allies, the US and the Republic of Ireland, have recently introduced their own registration systems, which would serve as perfect case studies, if given time to mature.
Instead of learning from foreign markets, the UK government has made an impulse reaction, deciding to bring forward registration simply because others are. Registration serves little purpose in isolation, but enables the likes of insurance, identification and, most importantly UTM. With no concrete plan in place, the UK would do well to dovetail to the UTM solutions across Europe, working with the market, rather than simply reacting to it.
