CAP 722, CAP 393 and CAA guidelines on safe drone use.

Lets cut straight to the chase.

Drones are dangerous and some people are using them in wholly inappropriate ways (see previous story on the drone caught at 3,900 feet over London). There's a distinct difference between someone who wants to use their drone for commercial purposes and someone who wants to kill some time and have some fun, recklessly. Therefore I think the regulation needs to change to reflect that.

Not only should there be a distinct differentiation between individuals who fly these machines, but there should be a clearly defined difference between a toy, and a multi rotor aircraft. It's just wrong that a palm sized Hubsan H107 should be classified the same (below 7kg) as a DJI Phantom. Indoors, the toys are safe, outside, they should have a much lower ceiling of operation. To take a palm sized quad up to 400ft would just be ludicrous. Hilarious, but ludicrous. Nevertheless, the same wealthy 'pilots' that take the toys outside for a laugh, can also fly the much larger, and much more dangerous drones, in the same manner. Should they so please.

This reckless behaviour will ultimately lead to a minor, or major incident which will make it newsworthy and turn the already semi hostile onlookers into vehement objectors. So lets change the regulations now before we're forced to.

• All larger drones, ~ Dji Phantom sized and larger, should be registered like in the U.S. and clearly marked with a unique registration number. Owners, like car owners should be easily traceable. Regardless of whether they want to fly for leisure or profit. 
• All qualified Drone pilots should be issued with pilots licences. 
• Qualified Drone operators with PFCO should be given full freedom to fly safe. IE, 400 ft ceiling and 500m range. 
• Unlicensed Drone operators (hobbyists) should be limited to lower altitudes 200ft altitude and 200m distance for example. 
• The freedom to fly from a reasonable take off point should be encouraged and better defined as it causes no damage and harms no one. Similar to the 'right to roam' privileges. However if a land owner objects then the drone operator should move along.
• Police should be well briefed on the regulations and given the right to view a pilots licence and freedom and knowledge to interrogate a pilots flight log for the flight they've just conducted to ensure it's within safety guidelines. (after they've landed). 

Thats it, thats all that needs to change. Keep the big birds close to the hobbyists and in excellent VLOS, give the freedom enjoyed, currently by all, to the pilots who have worked for it. 

That extra level of caution, the registration and ownership aspect, should, one would assume, encourage drone owners to exhibit a little more caution with their flying habits and ensure that they're not harming the reputation of this incredible growth past time.