DJI Position on FAA and recent purchasing

[JAW]

DJI was one of the original stakeholders in the aviation rulemaking committee's recommendation for remote ID. They believed remote idea could be accomplished via software updates. Most Mavic aircraft today have a remote ID capability. However, this capability does not come close to meeting the requirements of a limited use remote ID system as proposed.

1. The 400 foot rule as proposed is not one that you are expected to comply with voluntarily. The aircraft itself must not be capable of flying more than 400 feet from the controller.
2. The aircraft must be permanently marked so that it indicates it complies with the requirements of the remote ID system. Permanently, in my mind, does not include markings done with a magic marker or a stick on decal.

QUESTIONS:

Will the FAA modify the broadcast data requirements for a limited use remote ID system so that current aircraft with a remote ID system can be retrofitted?

Can this retrofit be done via software or firmware updates? Or must the aircraft be returned to the manufacture? If it must be returned, what would the cost be?

With the FAA modify the requirement for permanent markings that indicate compliance with the remote ID data broadcast elements?

I will be writing to the FAA to comment on the above as well as to DJI.

 

[DanMan32]

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.

I get what you are saying. But FAA does produce squares in some controlled airspace that have graduated height restrictions that can also be violated with various skill levels and knowledge. I'm saying they should do the same for runway approaches instead of a blanket zero that many are just not going to comply, and worse yet, not register the flight.

 

[hey1a]

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"

Yes, they definitely don't make it easy to find information on their website. So, DJI already has some remote ID technology platforms available (one is called the AeroScope). On the 26th of December they previewed an app that will allow for the use of the drone's Wi-Fi to broadcast remote ID information to a phone app. This should allow for transmission in remote areas where no cell or internet coverage exists and therefore meet the requirements of the proposed Standard Remote ID rule. This is still a prototype and they're waiting for the FAA proposed rules to get further along before they roll it out. Here is a link to the press release. At the very bottom of the article you'll find a link to the AeroScope; DJI Demonstrates Direct Drone-To-Phone Remote Identification

 

[MRomine]

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

A quote from that article: "DJI demonstrated the direct drone-to-phone remote ID system at a park in Montreal, Canada, during the International Civil Aviation Organization’s third annual Drone Enable conference. Participants used standard phones from Samsung, Google and Xiaomi to receive Wi-Fi Aware signals from a DJI Mavic Air drone and a DJI Mavic 2 Enterprise drone." No support apparently for iOS at least at this time.

Additionally: "“Our direct drone-to-phone solution is an easy and elegant solution for drone pilots. They will be able to comply with Remote ID expectations simply by updating the software on many drones already in widespread use, without any extra cost or equipment,” said Javier Caina, DJI Director of Technical Standards." I sure hope they keep their word on this.

 

[brett8883]

A quote from that article: "DJI demonstrated the direct drone-to-phone remote ID system at a park in Montreal, Canada, during the International Civil Aviation Organization’s third annual Drone Enable conference. Participants used standard phones from Samsung, Google and Xiaomi to receive Wi-Fi Aware signals from a DJI Mavic Air drone and a DJI Mavic 2 Enterprise drone." No support apparently for iOS at least at this time.

Additionally: "“Our direct drone-to-phone solution is an easy and elegant solution for drone pilots. They will be able to comply with Remote ID expectations simply by updating the software on many drones already in widespread use, without any extra cost or equipment,” said Javier Caina, DJI Director of Technical Standards." I sure hope they keep their word on this.

It’s a matter of if that system is the one that will be required or if it’s a different system or they just have to have some form of remote ID which all Mavics already have

 

[mas2310]

Me thinks that the 400 foot rule is a bit ludicrous. The distance should be based on the size of the stone as ‘visual rule’ is directly related to ‘size’.

I can see my son’s Mavic Pro very well BBC at 500+ feet but cannot see my Mavic Air at evenn 400 feet. I dc am GC guessing I would not be able to see a Mavic Mini at even 300 feet.

 

[Thomas B]

Me thinks that the 400 foot rule is a bit ludicrous. The distance should be based on the size of the stone as ‘visual rule’ is directly related to ‘size’.

I can see my son’s Mavic Pro very well BBC at 500+ feet but cannot see my Mavic Air at evenn 400 feet. I dc am GC guessing I would not be able to see a Mavic Mini at even 300 feet.

The 400 ‘ rule is fine. You just have to keep it in VLOS as defined and required by FAA and the problem is solved.

 

[B52-D]

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.
Do This?
Take a deep breath. Now start enjoying your Mini for three whole years or more. Then, re evaluate the situation at that time to see where things are at after all the smoke has cleared. Don’t worry, Be happy.

 

[Bayareafly]

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.

just to explain, I didn't mean moral responsibility, just the normal ethical behavior that any company has with their customers. Let assume you buy a car and you find out two weeks later that in order to run legally it should have a missing feature. Any car company in the world would do a recall, I would even be ready to pay extra for it since the FAA decision was published after I bought it (but I'm sure DJI knew it was coming) but they can't sell something that becomes quickly a brick. It has a substantial cost, it would not change my life but would upset me and many other customers.

 

[Thomas B]

just to explain, I didn't mean moral responsibility, just the normal ethical behavior that any company has with their customers. Let assume you buy a car and you find out two weeks later that in order to run legally it should have a missing feature. Any car company in the world would do a recall, I would even be ready to pay extra for it since the FAA decision was published after I bought it (but I'm sure DJI knew it was coming) but they can't sell something that becomes quickly a brick. It has a substantial cost, it would not change my life but would upset me and many other customers.

Enjoy the bird for the 3 years still under current rules. Learn about those rules after they are formalized. Most important, send comments to FAA/DOT to have any influence on what those new regs will be in final form.

 

[LanceBeasley]

I also think the 400ft range rule seems very restrictive. What if I’m out in the country, staying under 400ft altitude. I understand range limits near airports, heavily populated areas, etc. What dangers are being prevented?

 

[Thomas B]

I also think the 400ft range rule seems very restrictive. What if I’m out in the country, staying under 400ft altitude. I understand range limits near airports, heavily populated areas, etc. What dangers are being prevented?

Hopefully @sar104 is correct in his view of the document from FAA/DOT and we’ll just need capability programming in the drone and not actual network connection when we’re way out in the boonies. Until then, make input on the proposed rules and fly your birds.

 

[sar104]

Hopefully @sar104 is correct in his view of the document from FAA/DOT and we’ll just need capability programming in the drone and not actual network connection when we’re way out in the boonies. Until then, make input on the proposed rules and fly your birds.

I guess I'm completely baffled why this is "my view" of the document. No one has even been able to point to any ambiguity, and yet the discussion is still proceeding as if there were some doubt.

 

[Thomas B]

I guess I'm completely baffled why this is "my view" of the document. No one has even been able to point to any ambiguity, and yet the discussion is still proceeding as if there were some doubt.

Sorry, never meant to caste doubt or aspersions. Apologies for any irritation or offense. Just hoping the interp by FAA/DOT follows suite in the final form of the reg.

 

[sar104]

Sorry, never meant to caste doubt or aspersions. Apologies for any irritation or offense. Just hoping the interp by FAA/DOT follows suite in the final form of the reg.

I wasn't offended at all - just puzzled why this subject has created so much confusion. I had hoped that the summary table that I copied from the proposal would finally clear everything up.

 

[Bob4131]

I wasn't offended at all - just puzzled why this subject has created so much confusion. I had hoped that the summary table that I copied from the proposal would finally clear everything up.

Sar104....I am old and blind but I did not see the table to which you refer. I reviewed this thread without success. Can you repost or just provide the page number in the proposal where the table is located? Thank you.

 

[sar104]

Sar104....I am old and blind but I did not see the table to which you refer. I reviewed this thread without success. Can you repost or just provide the page number in the proposal where the table is located? Thank you.

 

[Bayareafly]

DJI was one of the original stakeholders in the aviation rulemaking committee's recommendation for remote ID. They believed remote idea could be accomplished via software updates. Most Mavic aircraft today have a remote ID capability. However, this capability does not come close to meeting the requirements of a limited use remote ID system as proposed.

1. The 400 foot rule as proposed is not one that you are expected to comply with voluntarily. The aircraft itself must not be capable of flying more than 400 feet from the controller.
2. The aircraft must be permanently marked so that it indicates it complies with the requirements of the remote ID system. Permanently, in my mind, does not include markings done with a magic marker or a stick on decal.

QUESTIONS:

Will the FAA modify the broadcast data requirements for a limited use remote ID system so that current aircraft with a remote ID system can be retrofitted?

Can this retrofit be done via software or firmware updates? Or must the aircraft be returned to the manufacture? If it must be returned, what would the cost be?

With the FAA modify the requirement for permanent markings that indicate compliance with the remote ID data broadcast elements?

I will be writing to the FAA to comment on the above as well as to DJI.

Thanks for the intelligent answer

 

[Bayareafly]

Enjoy the bird for the 3 years still under current rules. Learn about those rules after they are formalized. Most important, send comments to FAA/DOT to have any influence on what those new regs will be in final form.

Thanks, I guess I will return my drone and get a mini. It is not forced by many of these rules and it's a lower cost to amortize in 3 years if it will. Thank you for your answer

 

[Thomas B]

Thanks, I guess I will return my drone and get a mini. It is not forced by many of these rules and it's a lower cost to amortize in 3 years if it will. Thank you for your answer

Realize that the MM is subject to all these rules other than registration... unless you add something wrong 1 gram or more.

Please proceed with commenting to FAA on thes proposed rules. You can do it here:

Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems

This action would require the remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems. The remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems in the airspace of the United States would address safety, national security, and law enforcement concerns regarding the further integration of these aircraft...

www.federalregister.gov