the toy not toy debate reminds me very much of the RAFAC approach to using air rifles.
for the most part, while not a toy, Cadets themselves can own an AR, store it under their bed and use it perfectly legally in their garden.
bring that application to the RAFAC and it needs a range, which is approved. it needs qualified staff and it needs admin (RA, paperwork processes etc)
a toy drone (sub 1kg) is a toy drone, suitable to whizz around a drill hall or similar, potentially around a car park/drill square without any paperwork.
I won a min drone smaller than a smart phone in a raffle. it was rubbish, as you might expect but was also suitable to use indoors and with some practice likely wouldn’t be “rubbish” - and I am sure if the right kit was purchased (ie similiar size but with appropriate money spent) it would be ideal.
but bring “drones” to the RAFAC environment and much like AR is treated as a “weapon” and so certain processes need to be conducted, a “drone” is seen as an “aircraft” (regardless of size or capability) and so a similar process is required.
I am all for a proper process, but as @juliet_mike indicates:
and much like any AT that isn’t “trekking” it becomes too complex for the “average” squadron to deliver
(by this I mean the vast majority of Squadrons have Trekking ability, but very few have climbing, mountain biking or paddlesports ability - and other than maybe 1-2 Squadrons in the wing who have both Staff and kit to support this, the only way Cadets get the opportunity is via Wing delivery which rarely sees more than 2 events a year with ~20 Cadets each session.
by the sounds of it, drone flying is going/is the same route. except there is no “trekking” (eg toy drone) option, it is only the top level option available - rightly or wrongly. I can see the arguments for both sides, but it does feel like a “health and safety gone mad” #dailymail approach, a sledgehammer to crack a nut approach. )