Sale of unmanned aerial vehicles on but flying banned
IN THE ABSENCE OF A POLICY, THE DGCA ON OCTOBER 7, 2014, ISSUED A PUBLIC NOTICE THROUGH WHICH IT BANNED FLYING OF ANY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
In a first, the Delhi Police on Monday filed an FIR in connection with alleged sighting of an unidentified flying object over the Delhi Airport. The FIR was filed on a complaint by the Airports Authority of India.
The police have invoked section 188 (violation of a government order) against unknown persons.
The incident has highlighted the lack of clarity about the legality or the absence of it when it comes to regulation of drones. The aviation regulator, Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), is yet to come out with a formal policy to regulate flying, sale and purchase of sub-conventional aerial platforms such as microlight aircraft, para motors, multi-copters, para gliders, hang gliders and drones.
“A policy is in the works,” said a security source.
In the absence of a policy, the DGCA on October 7, 2014, issued a public notice through which it banned flying of any unmanned aircraft in the country’s airspace.
It also said that till the process to formulate the regulations are on, no individual or private organization can fly any unmanned aircraft without permission.
However, DGCA is yet to come out with the rules which it had to frame in consultation with more than half a dozen stakeholders such as Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, Airports Authority of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation, etc.
On April 22, 2016, it uploaded a draft circular on “Guidelines for Obtaining Unique Identification Number (UIN) & Operation of Civil Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)”, proposing to issue a UIN for any unmanned aircraft, including a toy helicopter.
Sources said standard operating procedures (SoPs) for handling threats from drones and other sub-conventional aerial platforms for Delhi were issued by the Union home ministry in August last year but such SoPs are yet to be issued for the rest of the country.
Last year in September, replying to an RTI application filed by Hindustan Times regarding framing of regulations for drones, Hillol Biswas, Director, (Aircraft Engineering), DGCA, said it received more than 500 responses. But, Biswas refused to provide any time frame that DGCA assigned to finalise the regulations.
Ramesh Tahlan, (Retd) IAF, and an aero-modeller enthusiast, says, “The DGCA should immediately come out with regulations and differentiate between uses such as hobby, toys or professionals.”
“The blanket ban is a draconian step and violations are bound to happen,” he said.
“It’s like issuing a driving licence. You don’t need licence to drive a toy car.”
Aviation experts also point out the futility of a blanket ban on flying of drones when its sale and purchase hasn’t been regulated.
“There is no law which stops me from possessing a drone but if I fly it, it’s a violation,” says a retd pilot requesting anonymity.
Websites in India sell unmanned aircrafts like helicopters and aeroplanes which can fly up to more than 1,000 feet.
Those who are selling multicopters and drones ask buyers to provide government permissions but that’s not enforced strictly in the absence of a law.
McDonald’s India Pvt. Ltd (MIPL), the local unit of the American fast food chain, on Monday terminated its franchise agreement with Connaught Plaza Restaurants Pvt. Ltd (CPRL), which runs McDonald’s outlets in north and east India, and is now looking for a new partner.
CPRL is a joint venture between MIPL and Vikram Bakshi, who is managing director of CPRL. McDonald’s cited “default in the payment of royalties by CPRL” as the primary reason for termination.
As a result, CPRL will have to “cease using the McDonald’s system (which includes proprietary rights in McDonald’s names, trademarks, designs, branding, operational and marketing practice and policies, and food recipes and specifications) and its associated intellectual property in relation to these restaurants within 15 days of the termination notice”.
“The termination is a result of a breach, a violation of certain essential obligations that were a part of the agreement typically the default of payment of royalties to MIPL for two years. CPRL was notified of the breaches and was provided opportunity to remedy those; it had failed to do so,” said Ron Christianson, global head of corporate relations, foundational markets, at McDonald’s Corp., adding that the company is looking for a new developmental licensee partner.
“It is a lengthy process but we are committed to the market. We want to rebuild a stronger McDonald’s,” Christianson said.
The company is currently working on the terms to mitigate the impact of the shut-
The termination is a result of a breach, a violation of certain essential obligations that were a part of the agreement typically the default of payment of royalties to MIPL for two years...