Having issued its draft-guidelines on civil unmanned aircraft (drone), the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) is contemplating strict regulation of the use of drones in the country.
The guidelines make it mandatory that all Unmanned Aircraft System (‘UAS’) users must be required to have a Unique Identification Number (UIN). It further states that permission must be obtained from local authorities for all flights below 200 feet over ground level, and from the DGCA for using the drone at or above 200 feet above ground level.
Given that prior approach seemed designed more to suppress than encourage drone use, the issuance of these guidelines is indeed a welcome step from the DGCA. But multiple challenges still remain that must be addressed for a well-regulated but economically viable space to be created for domestic drone use.
DGCA Guidelines and the ‘multiple’ Challenges ahead
The guidelines conceive an unmanned aircraft as “an aircraft which is intended to operate with no pilot on board”. This requires certain components such as a remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), a command and control unit, and personnel for its operation, all of which form the unmanned aircraft system (UAS). A UAS may function either autonomously or be remotely piloted. However, the DGCA guidelines are focused almost entirely on remotely piloted drones, and hence require that they be operated within the visual line of sight (VLOS). This is a narrowness of focus the DGCA must address, to encourage the autonomy of the drones and bring more clarity into the regulations for autonomous drone-flights.
The privacy paradox
Although autonomous drones promise new possibilities, drones are an intrusive technology with great privacy implications for individuals. However, the DGCA draft-guidelines clearly miss the issue, only stating that ‘privacy must be given due importance’ and do not lay out any procedure for how privacy rights of citizens can be identified and protected.
Solutions to this problem could take the form of amendment to the Information Technology Act, 2000 in case of data threats or the insertion of provisions regarding drone surveillance in the Privacy Bill, 2011 which is still tabled in the Parliament. But both these methods are cumbersome. Hence, the best way is for the DGCA to come up with privacy regulations for drone surveillance while sticking to the basic principle of ‘reasonableness’. i.e., ‘reasonableness’ of drone surveillance must be tested and the expectation of the citizen’s privacy must be reasonable too. The dichotomy between these two aspects requires careful consideration and clear addressing.
Frequency bandwidths versus satellite linkage
The DGCA also mentions that UAS require data-link for their proper functioning. This data-link could take the form of radio or satellite communication. As far as radio frequencies are concerned, bandwidth is already a scarce resource and with the potential proliferation of drones, this problem is likely to be exacerbated.
The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is already considering specific regulatory provisions for drone frequencies. The DGCA must follow this lead and come up with a clear regulation on the mode of data-linking to be adopted because satellite communication lends greater accuracy of signals to line of sight communication, but radio frequency communication is certainly cheaper. But for the latter, the DGCA must have comprehensive agreements with the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) if radio frequencies are likely to be shared for drones.