Last month, Kerala State Electricity Board authorities lodged a petition with the Kalamasserry police about the mysterious sighting of a drone above their substation campus for two successive days.
Things seemed to have taken a rather ominous turn when children playing near the staff quarters on the same campus came across what looked like a live grenade on the same day the petition was lodged. Already apprehensive about the sighting of the drone, KSEB authorities were rattled by the discovery and rather hastily linked the ‘grenade’ to it and informed the police.
After a tense three-odd hours after dog and bomb detection squads were roped in, the police reached the conclusion that the object in question was not a grenade but a fancy cigarette lighter of the same shape.
While the air over the ‘grenade’ was cleared, the same cannot be said about the sighting of the drone as questions remain as to who flew it and whether it was a drone to begin with.
“We are not sure about whether it was flown by the youngsters who frequent a ground there for playing or was it part of some film shooting,” said a police officer at the Kalamasserry station.
Vijay Sakhare, Inspector General of Police and District Police Chief (Kochi City), said that while the security threat element posed by drones could not be underestimated, almost all drone-related alarms reported in the city so far had turned out to be false. He cited the case in which a drone was reportedly sighted near the BPCL-Kochi Refinery last year. A high-level probe was conducted and it was confirmed that a commercial airliner was mistaken as a drone.
“It often happens that objects are misconstrued as drones. But when sightings of drones are reported, especially near sensitive installations, we have no other option but to launch a detailed investigation,” he said.
Tracing down drones even when their sightings are for real remains tricky because by the time the police reach the spot on being alerted, they would have disappeared. Lack of awareness about the multifarious uses to which drones can be put and the protocol regarding their operation continues to trigger false alarms. Even if a harmless bout of flying of a basic drone without taking necessary permissions is detected by the police, it at best attracts a charge under IPC Section 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant).
Manoj Abraham, ADGP, Headquarters, and nodal officer of Kerala Police Cyberdome, said that basic drones easily available and widely used for aerial photography hardly posed any security threat, as applications like Google Maps offer even better precision imagery.
“But advanced drones capable of carrying payloads of one kilogram or more present a considerable threat as they could even be used for dropping bombs as manifested in the recent attack in Saudi Arabia using drones,” he said.
Standard procedure
The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) had laid down detailed Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) for operation of civil Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS), which kicked in December 1, 2018. It is applicable to every civil RPA, which are remotely piloted from a Remote Pilot Station.
“It lays down a standard operating procedure for flying drones based on height, weight and distance factors. There were plans to fit every drone registered with Global Positioning System so that their entire operations could be monitored and violations could be easily detected. But it is yet to be implemented, as the digital mechanism for the regulation of drones remains to be fine-tuned,” said Mr. Abraham.
CAR guidelines
The CAR issued under the provisions of Rule 15A and Rule 133A of the Aircraft Rules calls for Unique Identification Number (UIN), Unmanned Aircraft Operator Permit (UAOP) and other operational requirements for civil RPAS.
It earmarks dangerous, prohibited and restricted areas where the operation of drones is either restricted subjected to conditions or fully prohibited.
The areas include air space of defined dimensions within which activities dangerous to the flight of aircraft exist at specified times and above the land areas or territorial waters of India within which flights are not permitted at any time under any circumstances.
The DGCA has identified five different categories of RPA in accordance with Maximum All-Up-Weight, including payload, under CAR. Nano RPA weighs less than or equal to 250 grams, micro weighs more than 250 grams and upto two kilograms, small weighs between 2 kilograms and 25 kilograms, medium between 25 kilograms and 150 kilograms and large RPA weighs over 150 kilograms.
Nano RPAs operating at not more than 15 metres above the ground level in uncontrolled airspace or enclosed premises for commercial, recreational or research and development purposes are exempted from obtaining UIN issued by the DGCA. Similarly, RPAs owned or operated by National Technical Research Organisation, Aviation Research Centre and Central intelligence agencies are also exempted from UIN and UAOP.
Nano RPA operating below 15 metres above the ground level and micro RPA operating below 60 metres above the ground level are also exempted from obtaining UAOP though the user should intimate local police station and Air Traffic Service concerned 24 hours before the operation in the case of the latter.
Detailed operational restrictions are also laid down for civil RPAs whereby they should not be operated within a distance of 3 kilometres from the perimetre of any civil, private, or defence airports; beyond 500 metres horizontally into sea from the coastline provided the location of the ground station is on a fixed platform over land; and within 3 kilometres from the perimetre of military installations or facilities where military activities or exercises are being carried out unless clearance is obtained from the facility concerned.
Operating RPAs from mobile platforms such as a moving vehicle, ship or aircraft remains restricted so does operating them within a 3 kilometres radius from the State secretariat complex and within two kilometres of strategic locations or vital installations notified by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The DGCA has identified areas with specific coordinates in Munnar, Devikulam and Idukki for testing and demonstration of RPAs.
However, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, CEO of FeatherDyn, a start-up being incubated in Maker Village and developing long-range drones for asset monitoring and maritime logistics with the financial backing of Gail Limited, complained that the DGCA-specified testing sites continued to remain on paper. He said the DGCA further needed to streamline its regulatory mechanism. “Drones could be put to effective use in law enforcement and they could be thrust into aerial patrol and surveillance and coastal patrol,” said Mr. Chandrasekhar.
Realising their potential to add teeth to the enforcement mechanism, the Kochi city police are actively considering the possibility of enlisting the service of drones in law enforcement. “They could be our eyes in the sky for surveillance. It is possible to link them up with our control room to detect threats and generate automatic alerts. It is high time that we harness the advantages of technology,” said Mr. Sakhare.
