DJI Position on FAA and recent purchasing

[Bayareafly]

I recently bought a Mavic Pro and I'm still into the return period. I think a company like DJI should urgently come out with a position about the new FAA proposed rules. What is stopping me and all the Christmas purchasers from returning my drone? While I enjoy it very much I could have a brick in 3 years. DJI could be heavily damaged by the returns if they don't commit to some mitigation like a retrofit for existing drone owners when the rules become mandatory. (even for a reasonable price). What do you guys think? Trust me an American company would have PR all over this but DJI seem not to interested to people that bought a drone recently, we will have to take the thing in our hands either returning it or suing.

 

[Thomas B]

I recently bought a Mavic Pro and I'm still into the return period. I think a company like DJI should urgently come out with a position about the new FAA proposed rules. What is stopping me and all the Christmas purchasers from returning my drone? While I enjoy it very much I could have a brick in 3 years. DJI could be heavily damaged by the returns if they don't commit to some mitigation like a retrofit for existing drone owners when the rules become mandatory. (even for a reasonable price). What do you guys think? Trust me an American company would have PR all over this but DJI seem not to interested to people that bought a drone recently, we will have to take the thing in our hands either returning it or suing.

Note that DJI does not monitor this forum as they sponsor one of their own.

DJI will undoubtedly make input, but you won’t see it here. Read the proposal the drone will not be bricked under the initial proposal.
It will be 3 years before any of the proposal takes effect....
Suing won’t help and will not change the FAA/DOT proposal.... your option of course, but a new drone in three years, if needed, would be cheaper.

I would encourage you to send comments and concerns to FAA/DOT (who don’t read this forum, at least not for input on proposed regulations). That’s what will help

 

[IShouldBeWorking]

My game plan is already set:

• Continue to fly my Mavic 2 Pro the way I have this past year, until the rule changes take effect.
• Provide input to the FAA about the proposed rules. (Something along the lines of Can legacy UAS still use Class G, please? Only flying at model aircraft fields stinks for photography.)
• Upgrade to something new with an "internet telemetry streaming gizmo" that complies with the new rules in 3+ years.

By the time the rules take effect I'm sure I"ll be itching for an upgrade anyway. But the OP has an excellent point. If I was in the market for something new today, this proposed new set of rules would be on my mind and might keep me from buying. But if I were in his shoes, and got something new for Christmas, I'd go fly it and have fun for the next 3+ years and let the future bring what it may.

 

[brett8883]

All Mavics already have remote ID if that is what you are referring to.

I recently bought a Mavic Pro and I'm still into the return period. I think a company like DJI should urgently come out with a position about the new FAA proposed rules. What is stopping me and all the Christmas purchasers from returning my drone? While I enjoy it very much I could have a brick in 3 years. DJI could be heavily damaged by the returns if they don't commit to some mitigation like a retrofit for existing drone owners when the rules become mandatory. (even for a reasonable price). What do you guys think? Trust me an American company would have PR all over this but DJI seem not to interested to people that bought a drone recently, we will have to take the thing in our hands either returning it or suing.

DJI supports remote ID, a form of remote ID is already active on all Mavics, DJI has been working with regulators on universal remote ID protocols and even showcased a system that would allow anyone with a smart phone to track nearby drones, and DJI has ready said that that it could push updates to older devices to make it compliant with new regulations. Many people are concerned DJI is pushing this technology too hard rather than not hard enough. I don’t think you need to worry about your DJI drone not being compliant when the time comes over any other manufacturer.

DJI Demonstrates Direct Drone-To-Phone Remote Identification - DJI

DJI today demonstrated a direct drone-to-phone, Wi-Fi based solution to remotely identify airborne drones, pioneering an easy way for anyone with a smartphone to monitor nearby drones for enhanced safety, security and peace of mind.

www.dji.com

 

[JAW]

My guess is DJI will produce a system that meets the requirements of a limited remote ID system as opposed to the standard remote ID system. The big difference, among other things, is the aircraft must not be capable of operating more than 400 feet from the controller. In other words, draw a 400 foot circle around you and flights beyond that 400 feet would encounter a no-fly zone and therefore not be able to enter. According to the proposal, the 400 foot circumference rule is the distance at which law-enforcement can visually identify the operator of a drone.

 

[Thomas B]

....According to the proposal, the 400 foot circumference rule is the distance at which law-enforcement can visually identify the operator of a drone.

?

 

[WithTheBirds]

Who are you planning to file a suit against? FAA or DJI? On what basis? Almost certainly a total waste of time and effort.

 

[JAW]

?

"FAA agrees with the ARC determination that 400 feet is a reasonable distance for visually associating an unmanned aircraft with the location of its control station, and has included a 400-foot range limitation in the requirements for limited remote identification UAS."

The full paragraph:

"The ARC identified a range of 400 feet as the maximum distance that an unmanned aircraft could be operated from its control station where a law enforcement officer could reasonably locate and identify the operator of the unmanned aircraft by visual means only. The FAA agrees with the ARC determination that 400 feet is a reasonable distance for visually associating an unmanned aircraft with the location of its control station, and has included a 400-foot range limitation in the requirements for limited remote identification UAS."

 

[Bayareafly]

Who are you planning to file a suit against? FAA or DJI? On what basis? Almost certainly a total waste of time and effort.

Obviously I'm not planning to file a suit. If you saw how these things work a law firm will file the suit to DJI "on the behalf" of the damaged people. We will get a check with 10$ may be but DJI will get a lot of bad publicity and a trouble in their hands unless they do something quick.

 

[Bayareafly]

"FAA agrees with the ARC determination that 400 feet is a reasonable distance for visually associating an unmanned aircraft with the location of its control station, and has included a 400-foot range limitation in the requirements for limited remote identification UAS."

The full paragraph:

"The ARC identified a range of 400 feet as the maximum distance that an unmanned aircraft could be operated from its control station where a law enforcement officer could reasonably locate and identify the operator of the unmanned aircraft by visual means only. The FAA agrees with the ARC determination that 400 feet is a reasonable distance for visually associating an unmanned aircraft with the location of its control station, and has included a 400-foot range limitation in the requirements for limited remote identification UAS."

I could probably live with that, the language is different though "in dedicated areas" for what I recall. It means that could be a few and far apart places probably with nothing interesting

 

[Bayareafly]

All Mavics already have remote ID if that is what you are referring to.

DJI supports remote ID, a form of remote ID is already active on all Mavics, DJI has been working with regulators on universal remote ID protocols and even showcased a system that would allow anyone with a smart phone to track nearby drones, and DJI has ready said that that it could push updates to older devices to make it compliant with new regulations. Many people are concerned DJI is pushing this technology too hard rather than not hard enough. I don’t think you need to worry about your DJI drone not being compliant when the time comes over any other manufacturer.

DJI Demonstrates Direct Drone-To-Phone Remote Identification - DJI

DJI today demonstrated a direct drone-to-phone, Wi-Fi based solution to remotely identify airborne drones, pioneering an easy way for anyone with a smartphone to monitor nearby drones for enhanced safety, security and peace of mind.

www.dji.com

That would be really great. Why they didn't issue a press release on their web site? This is what companies do when caught by surprise by the legislator.
If they enable a radio already present in the drone I'm fine with that. I never intended flying in prohibited areas anyway.

 

[Bayareafly]

Note that DJI does not monitor this forum as they sponsor one of their own.

DJI will undoubtedly make input, but you won’t see it here. Read the proposal the drone will not be bricked under the initial proposal.
It will be 3 years before any of the proposal takes effect....
Suing won’t help and will not change the FAA/DOT proposal.... your option of course, but a new drone in three years, if needed, would be cheaper.

I would encourage you to send comments and concerns to FAA/DOT (who don’t read this forum, at least not for input on proposed regulations). That’s what will help

I never expected an official response from DJI here, I expect one on their web site and there is a sense of urgency by a lot of people. I was asking for opinions here, I think it was clear from my post. As I explained in a previous reply is not me suing but law firms specialized in class actions unless DJI provides a remedy at "reasonable terms and time" , if not you will see. These lawyers aren't motivated by justice but they can make millions in a settlement and they keep most of the money usually.

 

[brett8883]

That would be really great. Why they didn't issue a press release on their web site? This is what companies do when caught by surprise by the legislator.
If they enable a radio already present in the drone I'm fine with that. I never intended flying in prohibited areas anyway.

Did you look? They did. The press release I linked above was also on DJI’s website though that one wasn’t directly referring to the new proposed legislation. This one does...

DJI Is Reviewing FAA Proposal To Identify Drones In American Skies - DJI

FAA Rule For Remote Identification Intends To Bolster Safety, Security And Accountability

www.dji.com

 

[brett8883]

Also DJI’s in depth discussion on Remote ID(it’s long)

DJI Remote ID Discussion Paper.pdf

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

 

[DanMan32]

I don't understand the outcry over DJI. Manufacturerers of less capable drones are plenty.

 

[deleted member 877]

DJI is not legally obligated to do any retrofitting of legacy products or anything else retrospectively as a result of new FAA regulations. The FAA would be where you would be wanting to target with a class action lawsuit - but good luck with that.

 

[Bayareafly]

Did you look? They did. The press release I linked above was also on DJI’s website though that one wasn’t directly referring to the new proposed legislation. This one does...

DJI Is Reviewing FAA Proposal To Identify Drones In American Skies - DJI

FAA Rule For Remote Identification Intends To Bolster Safety, Security And Accountability

www.dji.com

Thank you for the info. I went on their web site and I didn't find the press release, evidently I didn't look into the right place. Your link is useful to me. Having said that the press release is not saying too much, the fact that drone to drone test were done means nothing for the existing owners. Will see what they come up with that has any substance like a simple "we will stay behind our existing customers to preserve the value of their investment"

 

[Bayareafly]

DJI is not legally obligated to do any retrofitting of legacy products or anything else retrospectively as a result of new FAA regulations. The FAA would be where you would be wanting to target with a class action lawsuit - but good luck with that.

I don't need any luck and others will do this. If you read my post I was talking about the recent purchasing, they either convince me quick to keep the drone or it will go back to them. There is though a moral obligation, that little thing call ethics and so underestimated these days that would urge them to retrofit existing products. If they don't do that (or an alternative measure) they may have surprises with their market share in the future.

 

[Bayareafly]

Also DJI’s in depth discussion on Remote ID(it’s long)

DJI Remote ID Discussion Paper.pdf

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

thanks

 

[deleted member 877]

I don't need any luck and others will do this. If you read my post I was talking about the recent purchasing, they either convince me quick to keep the drone or it will go back to them. There is though a moral obligation, that little thing call ethics and so underestimated these days that would urge them to retrofit existing products. If they don't do that (or an alternative measure) they may have surprises with their market share in the future.

Fair enough but I wasn't actually directing my comments at you per se, otherwise I would have quoted your post. I think that DJI could be safe in assuming that most (not all of course) of their customers will be happy to upgrade to a new drone in 3 years' time when the outcome of the proposal, whatever it may be, comes into effect.

In terms of moral responsibility, that's possibly asking a bit much of a drone manufacturer that commands the lion's share of the market and is likely to continue to enjoy that status for the foreseeable future. Just my opinion of course.