DJI Statement on Mavic 3 and C-mark

[zocalo]

Spotted this at a number of sites now, often with a lot of speculation and - in some cases - fairly fundamental factual errors but, just in case anyone has missed it, this is what DJI has to say on the current state of play with the introduction of the new drone classification markings in the EU and UK:

The standards for drone class identification labels have not been finalized yet.

As of today, the notified bodies that are necessary to provide class identification labels have not yet been appointed by authorities in any EU state. Therefore, we refrain from speculating what kind of class identification label might apply to current or future DJI products.

DJI participates in advising on the standards and is working with potential notified body candidates, and we will be working on assuring compliance for relevant products accordingly.

We are aware that the current situation has led to many uncertainties amongst users when it comes to compliance of DJI drones with the new European Drone Regulations and class identification labels.

Rest assured this issue is of the utmost importance to us, and we hope to resolve it as quickly as is feasibly possible.

"Resolve" implies seeking a long term solution rather than just a clarification to me, which bodes well, although that will clearly depend on how willing the various government bodies are to agree on some form of compromise. Given an already stated reluctance to allow for retrospective markings and the legal hassle of amending dates already written into statute books I'm not getting my hopes up too much, but time will tell.

 

[eEridani]

That presser can be interpreted many ways.

One way is that they know there's a problem in their hardware that can't meet the specs; so one day they hope to build a new drone that will meet the specs.

 

[zocalo]

That presser can be interpreted many ways.

One way is that they know there's a problem in their hardware that can't meet the specs; so one day they hope to build a new drone that will meet the specs.

That's possible, but a bit of a stretch, IMHO. The rules *are* still in flux, so it could only take a small tweak to the requirements to cause the Mavic3 to end up in a different class to what it would be with the currently published rules. That's the crux of the dilemma that DJI and other manufacturer's have; how do you design and a build a drone to comply with a given spec. if you are not sure what the final version of the spec. will be?

Firstly, I find it interesting that at no point in that do they even hint at any potential delay to the date at which non-marked drones become legacy. That might imply that option for a potential solution has already been ruled out in whatever on-going negotiations there are. The key line for me though, is this one, and in particular the bit I've put in bold:

Therefore, we refrain from speculating what kind of class identification label might apply to current or future DJI products.

There's only two ways that a C-mark can be applied to a current model of drone; it's compliant with a given spec. and the approprite C-mark is applied retrospectively to all shipped drones, or it gets applied to all models that are manufactured after whatever date the certification is approved. I'd guess DJI is pushing for the former and want to assure potential buyers that will be the case, but don't want to say that in case people start thinking that's what will happen and there's an inevitable backlash if/when it doesn't.

The problem for the certification bodies is the latter will almost certainly result in the ridiculously arbitrary scenario of having two physically indentical drones, only one with an additional marking on it, that have different legislation applied to them. Good luck explaining that one to all the owners, retailers, enforcement bodies, and so on! I doubt DJI particularly care about how embarrassingly incompetent all this makes the government agencies concerned look, but they will care about sales, and in order to get those they're going to need to provide clarity, and in a good way, about the longevity of the purchased drones. That's basically what they're saying here; "We didn't create this mess, but we are working hard at finding a solution! Please bear with us a little longer."

 

[eEridani]

Somewhere didn't the ruling body say products needed to be certified before listing them for sale? That no products would be grandfathered? I can't find the text, but that part stuck with me. I'm in the camp that thinks that isn't reasonable, so will be fought in court, but still a possible roadblock.

 

[old man mavic]

its something that here in the UK at least ,the government dept along with the CAA ,who will be testing and approving drones for C classification status ,has not even been set up yet
my MPP in tripod mode ,already meets the criteria on speed of movement for flying close to people add prop guards and it is ready to go
the problem is the way in which that mode is selected ,by accessing the screen and then selecting tripod mode ,with the C rated drone it will need to have a means of putting it in a slow speed mode directly from the controller itself ,and a way of showing that it is locked in that mode, while flying in close proximity to uninvolved people, it will also have to meet strict criteria, on the amount of damage that the drone could cause if it impacted with a persons head ,i would also imagine that some form of propeller guards will also need to attached during such flying
so not only have the manufacturers of drones, have to build a drone to meet the specs
they won't get approval till individual countries governments are satisfied that they do

 

[zocalo]

Somewhere didn't the ruling body say products needed to be certified before listing them for sale? That no products would be grandfathered? I can't find the text, but that part stuck with me. I'm in the camp that thinks that isn't reasonable, so will be fought in court, but still a possible roadblock.

There was a comment from a CAA spokesperson, IIRC, saying that they were highly opposed to retrospective certification, but they didn't definitively rule it out either. It would be an *extremely* exceptional event for them to do this though, so I'm certainly not counting on it, even if it would potentially lead to the scenario of two drones that are identical in every way apart from a sticker of some kind being subject to different rules of operation. But what are vendors like DJI supposed to do? Sit on their hands and wait an arbitrary length of time without designing new products, let alone releasing them and getting some revenue? I suspect they've already being doing that to at least some extent for much of 2021 and have just decided enough is enough.

My take is that the various government bodies (the DfT in the UK, their equivalents elsewhere in the EU) realise they are responsible for creating this mess through failing to act in a timely manner in appointing the certification bodies, and it's now as much about saving face as anything else. DJI's statement implies there are on-going negotiations at least, but that's no guarantee of a solution, let alone one that works, although I think it somewhat promising that no one has really drawn any redlines in public yet.

Ultimately, this is quite likely to cost DJI sales and, like you, I can absolutely see this ending up in the courts if it isn't resolved amicably fairly soon. What that mean for the range and availability of drones in the EU and UK is anyone's guess, but I doubt it'll be positive for anyone other than the lawyers.

 

[PeterButton]

Thanks for your observations on this important topic everybody.

The summary seems to be that the conclusions that emerge will be essentially pragmatic. This outcome appears reasonable but inevitably carries no guarantees.

I have just joined this forum as a new drone owner in the UK. I'm very impressed with the quality of informed discussion.

Thanks again!