You may have read in the press that, early in May this year, the UK government committed nearly £50 million to unlocking growth in the commercial drone and advanced air mobility sector.
But one industry analyst is not impressed.
They have not specifically identified themselves by name, only choosing to call themselves Not A UAS Analyst, but they are really unimpressed that are being unfairly singled out as the only aircraft to abide by some selective aviation rules.
But more on that later.
Having pledged a £46.5 million investment to drone technology, the Uk government said part of that capital will be committed to “a crackdown on ‘faceless’ drones, which can be used in suspicious or illegal activity, through the first bespoke drone identification system.”
As the government argued, these measures will make it easier for police to identify illegal or nuisance users and clear the way for legitimate drone operators.
We’re backing the next generation of British aviation innovators with nearly £50 million to drive drone regulation reforms and unlock barriers to growth that will create jobs, lower emissions and further the UK’s world-leading aviation reputation,” said aviation minister Keir Mather.
“Innovation must go hand in hand with strong security – that’s why over half of our investment will develop a new ID system to track drones in real-time, supporting emergency services and building public confidence in an industry that could be worth up to £103 billion by 2050.”
Delivered through the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the funding would also cut red tape and support the regulatory, digital and security foundations needed to bring drones and advanced air mobility – such as electric flying taxis – into more routine use across the UK, the aviation regulator said.
This funding will create a numberplate system for the skies,” said security minister Dan Jarvis.
“Law enforcement will be able to identify and take action against those who break the law, taking drones out of the sky and protecting the public.”
Some of the funds will also be directed towards speeding up approvals for drone operations for emergency responses, medical logistics and infrastructure inspection, driving forward regulation to get flying taxis in the sky from 2028.
Drone operators will also benefit from a streamlined digital application process, reducing the time required to navigate regulations and prepare applications.
Ostensibly, the announcement was part of the UK government’s broader ambition to maintain and expand the country’s position as an aviation superpower – including work to strengthen UK research and innovation, ensuring high-growth sectors such as robotics and AI have the support they need to thrive.
Our work going on right now is laying the foundations for commercial operation in the future, unlocking routine drone deliveries, long-range inspections and hospital logistics,” said Sophie O’Sullivan, Director Future Safety and Innovation at the UK Civil Aviation Authority.
“This vital funding supports the next generation of aerospace, strengthening safety and bringing economic growth for the UK.”
Stakeholders in the industry are reportedly happy, with Stuart Simpson, CEO of Vertical Aerospace, welcoming the capital injection.
This is a welcome investment in the sector by the government,” Simpson said.
“To lead in advanced air mobility requires a regulatory system that can move at pace while maintaining the highest safety standards. The UK’s CAA has been a serious and constructive partner.
“This investment is a further step towards positioning the UK at the leading edge of the eVTOL sector, as it moves towards commercial operations.”
Stephen Wright, Chairman and Founder of Windracers, also chipped in.
“This is a significant step forward for the UK’s drone and advanced air mobility sector. Targeted investment alongside practical regulatory reform is exactly what is needed to unlock real-world operations at scale.
“At Windracers, we see first-hand how autonomous aviation can strengthen supply chains, support critical services and operate reliably in some of the most challenging environments.
“We are proud to work alongside the Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority as a trusted partner, helping to shape a regulatory environment that supports UK innovation while maintaining the highest standards of safety.
However, after a few days of looking at the small print, our Not a UAS Consultant was not fooled. In an article released by sUAS, the analyst questioned by drone technology was being singled out for remote identification, in vast aviation space where other aircraft was not being subjected to comply with the same requirements.
Which is a really good observation when you think about it.
“On paper, (the investment) is being sold as innovation, growth, BVLOS progress and “cutting red tape”, the analyst said in their reaction.
“In reality, the most revealing part of the announcement is not about enabling the drone industry at all. It is the £20.5 million being committed to a drone “numberplate ID system” aimed at identifying, tracking and prosecuting drone users.
The government’s own press release says the system will help police “protect UK skies and prosecute illegal users”, while ministers describe it as a way to track drones in real time and take action against those breaking the law.
“That is not an airspace integration breakthrough.
That is enforcement infrastructure.”
What the hell; let’s just let them make their point without adding or subtracting.
“The problem with Remote ID is not that identification is automatically bad. Legitimate operators have no issue being accountable. The problem is the claim that real-time Remote ID is somehow a major step forward for air safety, BVLOS operations or meaningful integration with manned aviation. It is not. Remote ID tells an authorised person who a drone belongs to, where it is, where the pilot is, and what it has been doing.
“The CAA states that Remote ID transmits time-stamped data including the Operator ID, aircraft serial number, aircraft position, height, route course, remote pilot position and emergency status (Civil Aviation Authority).
“That is useful after the fact, or for police monitoring nearby activity, but it does not in itself detect a microlight, avoid a paramotor, resolve a BVLOS conflict, or make two aircraft electronically visible to each other.
“If the policy were genuinely about air safety, the logic would apply equally across the airspace. Manned aviation would be required to carry a consistent, interoperable electronic conspicuity system, from paramotors and microlights through to gliders and light aircraft.
“That is the only way a drone operating BVLOS can reliably know what is nearby. The CAA itself acknowledges that electronic conspicuity strengthens “see and avoid” by adding “detect and be detected”, and that it supports safe integration of new entrants such as BVLOS drone operations (Civil Aviation Authority).
“Yet for drones, Remote ID is already being phased in as a legal requirement, while the CAA is still only “progressing work” on a potential UK-wide electronic conspicuity mandate for wider aviation (Civil Aviation Authority)
That is the imbalance.
“Drone operators are being asked to broadcast who they are, where their aircraft is, where the pilot is, and potentially feed that into a secure online system with historic data. Meanwhile, large parts of the low-level manned aviation community still avoid universal electronic visibility on cost, weight, heritage or practicality grounds.
“That might be understandable from their perspective, but it makes a nonsense of presenting Remote ID as the missing safety link for BVLOS. A drone can broadcast its identity all day long; if the aircraft that poses the collision risk is not electronically visible in a compatible way, the safety problem has not been solved.
“The CAA has already identified the real BVLOS issue: mid-air collision risk. Its Detect and Avoid programme says “perhaps the most significant barrier” to BVLOS growth is the collision risk associated with BVLOS operations (Civil Aviation Authority).
“Its BVLOS policy material says future integration is likely to depend on Detect and Avoid systems, and that electronic conspicuity is “very likely” to be an essential enabler (Civil Aviation Authority).
“That is where public money should be focused: interoperable electronic conspicuity, practical Detect and Avoid, lower-cost certification paths, realistic SORA approvals, and systems that actually allow commercial drone operators to fly further, safer and more often.
“Instead, more than £20 million is being directed at a Hybrid Remote ID system that looks far more useful to enforcement bodies than to operators trying to build businesses. Hybrid Remote ID is described as combining local broadcast with an online system accessible by authorised users and capable of recording historic data (Civil Aviation Authority).
Again, that is not a detect-and-avoid system. It is a traceability system.
“The government language gives the game away. “Numberplate system for the skies.” “Crack down.” “Prosecute illegal users.” “Take action against those who break the law.”
“These are not the words of an industry-enabling safety programme. They are the words of a surveillance and enforcement programme being bolted onto a sector that is already drowning in regulation, paperwork and approval delays.
“For legitimate commercial drone operators, this does very little. It does not automatically unlock BVLOS. It does not reduce SORA complexity. It does not make population data more reliable. It does not simplify flightworthiness evidence. It does not make SAIL-marked aircraft easier to bring to market. It does not solve Detect and Avoid. It does not make manned aviation more visible to drones. It simply adds another compliance layer and another data trail.
“The irony is that drones are already treated as the aircraft that must avoid everyone else. Sensible operators plan sterile areas, issue NOTAMs where appropriate, maintain separation, use geofencing, apply operational authorisations and stay clear of manned aviation. The burden is already heavily on the drone operator. But if the future vision is routine BVLOS and integrated lower airspace, then the answer cannot be to make drones visible to the authorities while leaving parts of manned aviation electronically invisible to the drones.
“That is not integration. That is one-sided regulation.
“The UK drone industry does not need a £20.5 million digital numberplate project dressed up as safety. It needs practical airspace access, a proportionate approval process, affordable compliance routes, and a joined-up electronic conspicuity environment that applies fairly to all aircraft sharing the same low-level airspace.
“Until that happens, Remote ID looks less like a tool for unlocking the future of flight and more like another expensive policy experiment. Nearly £50 million of taxpayer-backed funding is being presented as support for drones and advanced air mobility, but a major portion appears aimed at policing the industry rather than enabling it.
“For a sector already held back by regulatory drag, that is not progress. It is another example of policy makers at the DfT and CAA going too far, adding another layer of control while the real technical blockers to BVLOS remain unresolved.