DJI Position on FAA and recent purchasing

[Zandian]

My current plan is to hold on to my M2P and Skydio 2, sell my mini then hold off on purchases for a year or two until this shakes out. If the regs end up being as strict as they appear to be heading I have three years to find a new hobby.

Then, years from now I can tell my grandkids the stories of back in the day before the big government crackdown of 2022 how I used to fly this little aircraft around all over taking pictures from the sky, zooming from place to place, from a mile away even! I’m sure I’ll be the coolest grandpa around.

It’s about time for me to find something different to do with my time anyway.

Z

 

[Greg Webb]

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

In hopes that this "mod" can be something added to our previous mod without totally rolling it in to a new firmware that totally overwrites our "SuperPatcher" data.

 

[dklassen]

At the very least I hope they leave the under 250g exemption in place. We should all be commenting on that to the FAA. At least that leaves some things untouched like the Mavic Mini and smaller. It's not just DJI, it will devastate the entire RC aircraft hobby industry. Airplanes, helicopters, sport quads, FPV, everything. Maybe that's the plan...

 

[MBurris]

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.

The proposed regulations seem like a governmental solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. Where are all of the accidents that require such a draconian reaction? I’ve been searching for incident statistics about people being harmed by drones and could come up with nothing of any significance. Someone who wanted to cause harm wouldn’t use a drone with the remote technology.[/QUOTE]

 

[Deleted member 93449]

At the very least I hope they leave the under 250g exemption in place. We should all be commenting on that to the FAA. At least that leaves some things untouched like the Mavic Mini and smaller. It's not just DJI, it will devastate the entire RC aircraft hobby industry. Airplanes, helicopters, sport quads, FPV, everything. Maybe that's the plan...

My concern with respect to the under 250g class is that they are capable of making unauthorized excursions into controlled airspace. If a drone enters controlled airspace it doesn't matter if it's a sub 250g or over it has the same impact with respect to the disruption of air traffic. With the stroke of a pen that exemption can be removed.

 

[dklassen]

Well that's just peachy. I know, let's kill off the entire RC aircraft hobby for everyone else. "My concern with respect to the under 250g class is that they are capable of making unauthorized excursions into controlled airspace." Here's a revelation, so is my 1S 20 gram Tiny Whoop. I don't think anyone is going to fit all the required electronics and technology into a 20g craft and still make it capable of flight. Here's another revelation, the RC hobby consists of a lot more than just DJI camera drones or drones in general.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Well that's just peachy. I know, let's kill off the entire RC aircraft hobby for everyone else. "My concern with respect to the under 250g class is that they are capable of making unauthorized excursions into controlled airspace." Here's a revelation, so is my 1S 20 gram Tiny Whoop. I don't think anyone is going to fit all the required electronics and technology into a 20g craft and still make it capable of flight. Here's another revelation, the RC hobby consists of a lot more than just DJI camera drones or drones in general.

You would think there would be some lower limit. The problem is as manufacturers pack more capability (better cameras, longer flight times, higher speeds, etc.) into smaller/lighter drones to escape the regulations the potential for excursions into control airspace increases. It could be a catch 22 situation. I read somewhere that there were individuals involved in the crafting of the regulations that did not want to have any exemptions.

My point is the situation is fluid. I'm hoping we are pleasantly surprised by some changes in the final regulations but it could go the other way.

That said, and while I have my doubt very much of what the hobbyist has to say will have an impact everyone should go to the FAA website and concisely, clearly and respectful voice their concerns being specific about the items being proposed that you think should be changed. I don't think we can stop the ID technology from going forward but provide suggestions for changes. Some changes I'd like to see are increasing the 400' limitation for Limited Remote ID to something closer to actual line of sight limitations (maybe 1,000'), some common sense about restricting all flight in remote places that don't have cellphone/internet service, making the location of the person controlling the drone only available to the FAA and LE, for recreational fliers continuing one registration number for all of their drones (you're IDing the individual flying the drone not which drone they are flying) and requiring only one subscription for all the drones you fly (you only fly one at a time). There may be others but these are the things that come to mind.

 

[dklassen]

 

[Thomas B]

View attachment 89519

Contact FAA. These potential rules will take effect long before Congress deals with the issue again. Of course, also contact your senators and congressmen.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

View attachment 89519

I take no issue with anything you've said. Unfortunately technology has made getting into RC aircraft very inexpensive and easy to do. Within the percentage of new fliers are a group that either don't know or don't care about the rules for flying safely and the government, backed by the general public, are using a hammer rather than a scalpel to deal with the situation.

Our efforts should be to try and get them to put the hammer down and be a little more rational in creating rules that will continue to allow us the maximum freedom to fly while controls are put in place to allow for the numbers of flight operations, both recreational and commercial, to increase.

I think we should all submit comments to the FAA (concise, specific and respectful) and go as step further as you suggest to contact members of Congress regarding this issue.

 

[brett8883]

The consumer drone market was already in decline. Uncertainty about the product is definitely NOT going to help that situation. I wasn't expecting you to care about what I do with my money so that part of your comment was wasted space. I do expect drone manufacturers to care about what I and others will do in this time of uncertainty.

I didn’t mean to offend sorry if it came off that way. I just meant it wasn’t my business what you do with your money nor why

 

[BigAl07]

I take no issue with anything you've said. Unfortunately technology has made getting into RC aircraft very inexpensive and easy to do. Within the percentage of new fliers are a group that either don't know or don't care about the rules for flying safely and the government, backed by the general public, are using a hammer rather than a scalpel to deal with the situation.

Exactly!! Very well said.

I think we should all submit comments to the FAA (concise, specific and respectful) and go as step further as you suggest to contact members of Congress regarding this issue.

That's really the only hope and I'm not 100% convinced it will have any real effect but it's better than nothing.

The key is going to be the comment being exactly as you noted:

• concise
• specific
• respectful

Anything else will carry little to no weight.

 

[DanMan32]

Even in controlled airspace, FAA can be overreaching. UAS should not be an issue under 100ft or 20ft above trees, even up to 1 mile from runway. Yet one has 0ft ceiling up to 5 miles from a runway in controlled airspace and prohibits me from authorizing a perfectly safe flight in LAANC.

 

[brett8883]

View attachment 89519

I agree.

 

[WithTheBirds]

Even in controlled airspace, FAA can be overreaching. UAS should not be an issue under 100ft or 20ft above trees, even up to 1 mile from runway. Yet one has 0ft ceiling up to 5 miles from a runway in controlled airspace and prohibits me from authorizing a perfectly safe flight in LAANC.

Arguably the operation you propose is likely to prove safe. You need, however, to allow for certain eventualities. These include, but aren’t limited to, known failsafe operations- RTH, particularly where the RTH setting is above a safe AGL for the environment presents an obvious hazard. Compass and other GPS issues combined with a probably worst case signal loss also have obvious potential consequences.

 

[harle83]

I always take the opportunity to submit comments in a respectful and courteous way to the government bodies be it the FAA or FCC in my case as a Extra Class Ham.Does it make a difference? Probably not but at least I took the time and made my stance known. Think about this, if all of us in the Drone sphere submitted comments, that’s over 1.5 million drone pilots saying something. The minority can become the majority if we’re loud enough. It’s already happened before. How many will? I’m betting less than 1% of operators will bother.

Suing the government? Good luck, I think you might part Lake Michigan so we could all have a meet and greet out in the middle before you got anywhere with the feds. Just life, make your voices heard in a respectful way, as you want to be treated. Have a good one.

 

[DanMan32]

Arguably the operation you propose is likely to prove safe. You need, however, to allow for certain eventualities. These include, but aren’t limited to, known failsafe operations- RTH, particularly where the RTH setting is above a safe AGL for the environment presents an obvious hazard. Compass and other GPS issues combined with a probably worst case signal loss also have obvious potential consequences.

I typically set RTH anywhere between 90-120ft. That's sufficient to clear trees. Might not clear distribution power lines crossing the runway approach at 4 miles out from runway.

Very few flight control failures result in significant altitude increase other than RTH altitude increase.

 

[WithTheBirds]

I typically set RTH anywhere between 90-120ft. That's sufficient to clear trees. Might not clear distribution power lines crossing the runway approach at 4 miles out from runway.

Very few flight control failures result in significant altitude increase other than RTH altitude increase.

It should not prove beyond reasonable assumption that not everyone will apply the same consideration to setting an appropriate RTH altitude in these circumstances.

Consider that a large number of operators have a limited appreciation do the risks, some with no experience. The drones subject of discussion here, as good as they might be, are not without issues. The fact that some are DOA gives some indication of quality, particularly the care applied to final assembly and testing.

No strict certification requirements applied to operator knowledge/skill or sUAV performance/reliability suggests the FAA controlled airspace restrictions are appropriate rather than overreaching.

 

[DanMan32]

FAA does have altitude restrictions. Should be "pushed in" to more reasonable heights and not a blanket '0' 5 miles across. Should allow at least 100' after 1 mile. Even 100ft per mile after 1st mile should be safe enough.
Because of their overzealous restrictions, they have no record of my conservative flights since I can't submit them.

 

[WithTheBirds]

FAA does have altitude restrictions. Should be "pushed in" to more reasonable heights and not a blanket '0' 5 miles across. Should allow at least 100' after 1 mile. Even 100ft per mile after 1st mile should be safe enough.
Because of their overzealous restrictions, they have no record of my conservative flights since I can't submit them.

The point you seem to be missing is the FAA doesn’t just have you in mind. They need to allow for varying skill levels and knowledge so it is easier, and more importantly safer, to apply a blanket restriction.