Stifling drones

Draft norms for unmanned aerial vehicles are draconian

The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has recently issued draft regulations for private operations of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), or drones. This is long overdue. The UAV industry is a thriving, high-growth and high-technology segment and a large number of security and safety concerns are centred on the proliferation of drones. However, the draft regulations seem to be overly complicated and restrictive, and may be hard to enforce in practice. The regulations envisage that every privately owned drone should have a Unique Identification Number (UIN), and be equipped with Radio Frequency Identity tags and Subscriber Identification Modules. Every owner must be an Indian citizen (aged 13 years or older), or an Indian-registered body corporate with "substantial ownership and control vested in Indian nationals". The UAV operator must be over 18 years of age and must be issued a permit, if the vehicle is to be flown at more than 200 feet above the ground level. Drones must conform to safety regulations and carry appropriate insurance to cover liability. Micro drones weighing less than two kilograms have less onerous regulatory requirements but these must not be flown except through visual line of sight. Drones should not be used in controlled airspace reserved for the Air Traffic Control of manned aircraft.

So far, so good. But there are a plethora of additional regulations. Civilian drones are banned from using uncontrolled airspace across vast swathes. Drones are not to be used at all in most of Delhi. Nor can these be used within 50 km of international borders, or close to "sensitive" installations. Additional permissions and clearances must be granted by the local police, by the Department of Telecommunications and in some cases, by the local administration. Flight plans must be filed for usage. A security clearance must be obtained from the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security. The permits will have to be acquired at least 90 days in advance of actual operations. The permits will require renewal every two years with clearances from the Home ministry or the Bureau.

In sum, a lot of paperwork from sundry government departments must be accumulated before the applications for operator permits can be made. It is also possible that huge commercial opportunities are being stifled before even being conceptualised by the stringent nature of the area-based bans and the insistence on visual line-of-sight operations. In effect, given the number of "sensitive installations", and the discretionary permissions, very little airspace may be available.

These regulations will also be hard to enforce. Already, multiple types of drones are easily available, with the cheapest ones costing less than Rs 1,500 a piece. A middle-school student can assemble and program a working drone by putting together cheap off-the-shelf components. If permissions are too tedious or difficult to get, there will be a temptation to cut corners and just ignore regulations. Drones have already proliferated and, given sensible regulations, the market could explode. Apart from being popular recreationally, drones can perform a host of useful tasks. For example, they are effectively used in damage assessment and rescue operations after disasters; for general surveys and mapping; for monitoring of power lines, ports, and pipelines; commercial photography; crop spraying; gathering of weather data, etc. It is in every stakeholder's interest that the DGCA conceptualises rational guidelines for drones. The multiple safety, security and privacy concerns must be addressed. But the regulations should not be so onerous as to smother the sector in red tape.