I got the same e-mail. When I went into it, the call for 'evidence' is anything but that. It's exactly like the DOT's consultation document last year. In other words the decision has already been made. All that the 'call for evidence' pertains to, is which method will be adopted.
I find it hard to believe, that what started out as a nice little hobby/pastime for me just a few short years ago has come to this. It all started out with just a few common sense guidelines to follow and then suddenly, a few years down the line we are up to our eyes in rules and regulations! And it's not as if drones are actually causing death and destruction on any scale whatsoever. Still not a single death or even life threatening injury (as far as I am aware) caused by a drone. A media driven campaign and nothing but outright scare stories has led to this. Is all this really necessary? I mean really, is it?
Gotta agree.
I started flying drones at the start of 2015 and went on to get my PfCO once I'd got the hang of it. When I started over 4 years ago it was all fairly relaxed rules wise. Not now.
When I got my PfCO my Ops manual was approved first time I submitted it. The cost for the CAA approval was only a fraction of the cost it is now and if other posts in this forum is anything to go by, people now are far more likely to have their Ops Manuals rejected.
Like you, as far as I'm aware drones have not directly caused death or serious injury. As far as I'm aware I don't believe there has been a single incident of a drone colliding with any manned aviation in the U.K. Contrast that with the number of fatalities on our roads through traffic accidents, train accidents, shipping accidents, etc, etc. The list goes on. Yep, drones have had a bad press from bad journalism which seems to be ****-bent on painting our hobby with crimson death scare stories: The instance, for example, where it was reported that a drone had crashed into a commercial airliner that later turned out to be a plastic bag. The newspaper that reported it (I forget which one) made it front page news but when it later emerged that it was a plastic bag...nothing.
The Gatwick incident late last year is another example. Loads of drone sightings, people wrongly arrested, airport shut down for days...but where is the evidence that a drone had been flown anywhere near that airport at that time? Turned out that even the police put out a comment that they had doubts there was a drone. No images have been produced apart from a highly suspect low quality picture that could have been taken anywhere despite everyone and their dogs having cameras to hand in the shape of mobile 'phones.
I agree with sensible rules so long as they are sensible and proportional. But really, these rules coming through now seem a bit over the top. You are far more likely to be struck by lightening several times over than coming into contact with an errant drone.