CGN approach slowing down traffic, starting holdings and then switching runway after departing traffic reports drone over OM RWY 14L.

As the threat surely isn't limited to the "commercial a/c" aspect of this topic's title: a serious drone midair with a Black Hawk:
Sept2017 pics: drone hits Blackhawk helicopter over New York, debris embedded in fuselage

Reported damage to two of the main rotor blades and oil cooler after hitting the side of the Black Hawk with a piece of the drone recovered after landing.

News report of drone strike in Quebec
 

Drone strike report:

Plane sustained minor damage after hitting drone near Quebec City: Garneau - Montreal - CBC News

Another in Argentina it appears
 

https://www.aeroinside.com/item/1053...7-drone-strike

Argentinas 738. Pic on Simon's site but hard to determine impact point.

Brazilian CGH closed for 2 hours
 

Due to a drone presence, CGH airport was closed for 2 hours:

Drone causa cancelamento de voos em Congonhas por duas horas - São Paulo - Estadão [in portuguese]

Preliminary investigations couldn't find the responsible.

Hints of proposed legislation in the UK

Drone users in the UK will be required to do safety awareness tests as part of planned new legislation on their usage.

Police will also be given new powers to crack down on illegal use of the unmanned aerial vehicles.

UK drone users to sit safety tests under new law - BBC News

Communities all over the U.S. are passing local drone laws. They are all illegal. Only the FAA has jurisdiction over UAVs. In fact, the FAA's regulatory powers were diminished in September in a law suit brought by an attorney in Massachusetts. A federal judge ruled that noncommercial UAVs below the threshold weight need not be registered with the FAA, nor can the FAA charge a fee. The operational rules stand, though: noncommercial UAVs cannot be operated above 400 feet, agl, and not within 5 miles of an airport unless the airport authority gives permission.

In my local community in California the city counsel has passed a more restrictive code, which is unenforceable. One of the city's restrictions is a UAV cannot be operated within 500 feet horizontally of city-designated public buildings. I recently asked for the list of these buildings and am being stonewalled. Probably because the city manager failed to make any such designations.

My wife was shopping at the local WalMart yesterday. She said there were boxes and boxes of the "GPS Shadow Drone" on sale for $99.60. The new year should be interesting around here. We don't have enough local law enforcement to enforce the traffic laws, much less chase down errant drones.

Says it all really. We have laws new and old to cover almost everything, yet they are useless if not enforced.

A little bit more than hints. Here is the news story on the UK government website that is behind the BBC article -

http://www.gov.uk/government/news/ne...-use-of-drones

Most of the stuff the government are saying was in their response to their drone consultation back in July.

http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads...t-response.pdf

The one thing that I haven't seen before is this -

"New measures will also make it mandatory for drone owners to register to improve accountability."

Good luck with that.

An expression involving genies and bottles springs to mind ...

I think registration is only going to be mandatory for new purchases. Makes sense as they can enforce it through the machine setup/registration process. Mind you I think they could enforce on most existing machines the same way.

'They' will not be able to retrospectively enforce these regulations. They also do not apply to 'model aircraft' clubs. Anyone with a malevolent intent can easily build their own remote controlled aircraft (RPAS) and of course if they do that there is no reason to use the standard communications and control channels, a simple cellular network number is all that is required. So all the jamming of standard frequencies will not work.
Why is it that bureaucrats think that passing a law against something will stop people with malevolent intent? :ugh:

Having looked through the new proposals published by Gov.UK, I am still at a loss regarding the definition of a "Drone" vs a model aeroplane or helicopter.
I can see where they are trying to go with this, and appreciate that the 250g lower limit will rule out the gadget shop toys.
Can anyone see where it is defined?
A 5kg helicopter flown badly (or flown well, in a bad place) is probably going to end up messily but harmlessly re-kitted.
But a 5kg moulded sailplane that "gets away", would be a different matter if it gets in the way of GA or airline traffic.
Note here, I am not in any way suggesting we regulate RC model flyers beyond the existing codes of practise.

EASA and the CAA use 'drone' as a synonym for unmanned aircraft. The coming changes will affect model aircraft. See EASA NPA 2017-05 2.3.1.5 (page 9).

If you fly a unmanned aircraft over 250g, you will be required to register. See table 2 on page 15 of the NPA.

There are hooks in the NPA that the DfT/CAA can hang exemptions for the model aircraft associations on, see article 14.

'The bureaucrats' don't think regulation and legislation will stop people with malevolent intent. Legislation will, however, make it harder to implement that intent; will reduce (over time) the availability of the hardware to those with ill-intent; and will provide law enforcement and the judiciary with a robust legal framework to prosecute those who abuse the technology.

In other words, the same sensible legal framework that demands responsible ownership and use of any other potentially dangerous technology - like guns, cars and aircraft.

I'm sure that, behind the bluster, you understand the underlying principle that the more potential your behavior has to harm others, the more responsibility you have to behave intelligently.

Legislation takes time to catch up with technology and to fully understand the risk. When hobby UAVs were seen as 'just fun toys' there was no need for legislative control. Ten years on, the law needs to reflect widespread public fears that a hobby UAV could bring down an airliner. If these fears are unfounded, the law will never be used, and in time will drop off the statute book.

sxjack: thanks for the useful reference.
I can see a few test cases coming up...

I dont think the word hints was unfair. So far it's a wish or intention, not actual legislation

The current government proposed other laws or actions it has since dropped or not realised, and who knows whether the same government will be there in a few months time?

Off-topic: Boris Johnson said a year ago he wants to support Turkey's candidacy to join the EU, but looks unlikely to ever have the chance.

The draft Drone Bill, which will be published next spring, will give officers the right to ..

Pedantry corner: not quite, the draft bill is a proposal, for consultation, and the powers arise when legislation is actually passed, either the same as originally drafted or subsequently amended.

If _you_ wanted to be malevolent with a UAS it may increase the work factor to have legislation changing the software and hardware of the sold UAS. The same for the bureaucrats and politicians who are daily amazed by the cellular telephones. However, for the average hobbyist in both model aircraft and software using different frequencies and streamed video to control their UAS is as simple as rooting their iPhones. Let the security services jam WiFi and GPS around an airport and guess who is going to have problems.

While I understand the intent - the cures being proposed need to be altogether better thought out by experts in all the areas affected or the cures could be worse than the disease.