DJI vs FAA Who’s In Control?

[MRomine]

You might find this interesting as well as helpful. Why do you have to get DJI permission when you already have FAA permission?

 

[sar104]

I like the attempt to explain these (superficially) conflicting systems, but he does a really poor job of it in my opinion, primarily because he misses the purpose of the two systems.

The FAA LAANC system is a formal mechanism to obtain legal authorization to fly in certain airspace. The DJI Geo system, which predated LAANC by years, was their proactive attempt to put into place a mechanism to make it increasingly difficult to fly in airspace that could be hazardous to manned traffic. They implemented it to try to get ahead of what seemed likely to be increasingly onerous legislation on the use of sUAS, both recreational and non-recreational.

The FAA restrictions are legally binding, while the DJI system is a mixture of advisory and proprietary restrictions on the use of their aircraft. Ideally, now that LAANC exists, the DJI system will at some point be replaced by LAANC, but DJI is not yet a LAANC partner, hence the need for third-party apps to use it.

 

[MRomine]

The DJI system may have predated LAANC but did it predate the FFA restrictions for altitude and distance around an airport? It would be far better and less confusing if the DJI GEO fencing system more closely matched the FAA restrictions. As they are now they are often significantly different. The bigger pain as a part 107 pilot, once you have FAA approval you still have to get DJI approval. The LAANC system has been in place roughly two years now around major airports yet we do not see DJI acquiescing to FAA or the LAANC system. DJI will not comment on the topic when asked directly. In fact DJI has not even implemented LAANC accessibility on their smart controller, at least I have not found a way to do it nor has anyone been able to tell me how to do it. DJI will not respond to any questions regarding LAANC and their smart controller.

 

[sar104]

The DJI system may have predated LAANC but did it predate the FFA restrictions for altitude and distance around an airport? It would be far better and less confusing if the DJI GEO fencing system more closely matched the FAA restrictions. As they are now they are often significantly different. The bigger pain as a part 107 pilot, once you have FAA approval you still have to get DJI approval. The LAANC system has been in place roughly two years now around major airports yet we do not see DJI acquiescing to FAA or the LAANC system. DJI will not comment on the topic when asked directly. In fact DJI has not even implemented LAANC accessibility on their smart controller, at least I have not found a way to do it nor has anyone been able to tell me how to do it. DJI will not respond to any questions regarding LAANC and their smart controller.

Yes - DJI Geo predates the LAANC grids - those did not exist when it was implemented.

 

[GFields]

Valuable information

 

[spsphotos]

I like the attempt to explain these (superficially) conflicting systems, but he does a really poor job of it in my opinion, primarily because he misses the purpose of the two systems.

The FAA LAANC system is a formal mechanism to obtain legal authorization to fly in certain airspace. The DJI Geo system, which predated LAANC by years, was their proactive attempt to put into place a mechanism to make it increasingly difficult to fly in airspace that could be hazardous to manned traffic. They implemented it to try to get ahead of what seemed likely to be increasingly onerous legislation on the use of sUAS, both recreational and non-recreational.

The FAA restrictions are legally binding, while the DJI system is a mixture of advisory and proprietary restrictions on the use of their aircraft. Ideally, now that LAANC exists, the DJI system will at some point be replaced by LAANC, but DJI is not yet a LAANC partner, hence the need for third-party apps to use it.

I think he does a great job of explaining it. WHY they are in place is not relevant to the conversation. The questions he is addressing is not the history of why DJI did it, but how to get the proper authorizations. The easiest way honestly is to buy any other drone then DJI if you think you're ever going to fly in DJI GEO zones.

 

[DaveS]

We ran to this exact problem. We were hired to fly for a job just inside the airspace of a major Class B airport. I got permission from the FAA as long as I stayed under 400' which is what the LAANC air grid showed as the maximum in the area in which we were to fly. I went on LAANC and also got the OK. It never occured to me DJI's geo fencing system would not allow it. So, when we went to fly, we were limited to 200'. This severely effected what I was there to shoot. I got enough to make out client happy with the final video. However, I was NOT happy. In fact, I was really pissed at DJI. So, yes, if they ever get the XDynamic Evolve 2 out, we'll be looking at that drone for our next acquisition since it is not geo-fenced by the manufacturer. I follow FAA rules, not stuff arbitrarily made up by someone in China.

 

[sar104]

I think he does a great job of explaining it. WHY they are in place is not relevant to the conversation. The questions he is addressing is not the history of why DJI did it, but how to get the proper authorizations. The easiest way honestly is to buy any other drone then DJI if you think you're ever going to fly in DJI GEO zones.

I agree that the "how to" explanation is useful, but he starts the video by asking exactly those questions - why they are different and why you need to authorize through both systems, and says he is going to answer them. Then he doesn't answer them.

 

[MRomine]

Yes - DJI Geo predates the LAANC grids - those did not exist when it was implemented.

I understand the DJI predated LAANC but did it predate FAA restrictions of altitude and distance around an airport? I don't think so.

 

[MRomine]

I agree that the "how to" explanation is useful, but he starts the video by asking exactly those questions - why they are different and why you need to authorize through both systems, and says he is going to answer them. Then he doesn't answer them.

Hmmm, I thought he answered his own questions pretty well. I was satisfied with his answers.

 

[iReviewFrozenDinners]

Yeah I really hope DJI does away with this nonsense or at least adds a way to opt out with proof of a Part 107, because this just adds unnecessary steps to the whole process.

I shouldn't have to send proof of authorization to a foreign company when I already have authorization from a federal agency, that's absurd. This really salted my nuts when I first encountered it, so much so the next drone probably won't be a DJI.

 

[sar104]

I understand the DJI predated LAANC but did it predate FAA restrictions of altitude and distance around an airport? I don't think so.

The LAANC grids were the FAA restrictions of altitude around airports. Before those you simply had to apply for airspace waivers and authorizations.

 

[MRomine]

Yeah I really hope DJI does away with this nonsense or at least adds a way to opt out with proof of a Part 107, because this just adds unnecessary steps to the whole process.

I shouldn't have to send proof of authorization to a foreign company when I already have authorization from a federal agency, that's absurd. This really salted my nuts when I first encountered it, so much so the next drone probably won't be a DJI.

Yep, watching what is being introduced to the market by other companies. My Mavic Pro will probably be good for a couple more years yet.

 

[neggy]

read DJI's terms of service agreement sometime, like all the rest you are buying a software license to operate a machine you buy.

You are at the mercy of their software unless you find a third party app that works with the hardware, until then they can control the software as they see fit.

 

[smashse]

There are tons of people out there with no FAA Cert, no idea of what airspace is, no idea if they are within 5 miles of a class B airport, and if DJI consumer drones just allowed anything, those people who are making certified pilots look bad would get a lot of cities to ban drones completely. I mean the #1 question when the DJI A2S came out was how high can it go, and how far? Then does it work with FPV glasses? These are not questions by people who know anything about FAA rules, because the answers are, farther and higher than legal except in extremely rare circumstances, and if you use FPV, you need a VO (of course they won't use one...).

So I see this as a good thing, it was DJI trying to be proactive, and it is in use in more than just the US, so I don't think it is going away anytime soon. Not to mention, I've never had issues with getting DJI to approve anything, once they see you have LAANC approval, it is just a rubber stamp to them, and it helps ensure their drones aren't used illegally in a manner that would put human lives at risk.

It is kind of like when auto manufacturers put in limits on using your built in GPS while moving. Sure, your passenger can legally use it, but that doesn't matter since it would be too easy to circumvent then. Can't type in, even if legal for your passenger, they made it so the driver can't without hacking firmware, and they implemented it before the laws passed.

I know I can't use my GPS while moving, and it is illegal to use my cell phone except with handsfree inclusion, and I don't. But I see people doing it every day, and I see hacked firmware in cars allowing them to use it while driving. Point is, it is frustrating to those of us who abide by the rules/laws and have inconveniences because of others who think the rules aren't for them (combines macho, invulnerable, and anti-authority) or just plain ignorant, but it is something that is better for the common good and likely saves lives. Many of us can say, "yeah but why should I be limited, I wouldn't do illegal/stupid/risky things like that", but we are dealing with a company that specializes in consumer drones.

 

[MRomine]

read DJI's terms of service agreement sometime, like all the rest you are buying a software license to operate a machine you buy.

You are at the mercy of their software unless you find a third party app that works with the hardware, until then they can control the software as they see fit.

That is understood with all software but why is the FAA/Federal Govern't allowing this to happen since they have control of the airspace and there are such safety issues involved? The DJI software should be conforming to standards and regulations of the FAA not just do whatever a commercial entity thinks is best/cool/or profitable for the company.

 

[MRomine]

So I see this as a good thing, it was DJI trying to be proactive, and it is in use in more than just the US, so I don't think it is going away anytime soon. Not to mention, I've never had issues with getting DJI to approve anything, once they see you have LAANC approval, it is just a rubber stamp to them, and it helps ensure their drones aren't used illegally in a manner that would put human lives at risk.

A good thing to a degree but it is backwards. The FAA/Federal Govern't should be policing this and making the manufactures adapt to Federal regulations instead of allowing the manufactures implement whatever they think is best. If that were being done then there would not be a two step process of FAA/DJI authorization. Addiotnally LAANC does not work with a Smart Controller and DJI will not even talk with customers about when or if they plan to incorporate LAANC into their Smart Controller or why not just incorporate the LAANC system into the Go4 app?

 

[neggy]

That is understood with all software but why is the FAA/Federal Govern't allowing this to happen since they have control of the airspace and there are such safety issues involved? The DJI software should be conforming to standards and regulations of the FAA not just do whatever a commercial entity thinks is best/cool/or profitable for the company.

because the FAA has no jurisdiction, DJI is not allowing the sUAV's to break any FAR, DJI is actually running a tighter ship.

The FAA says I can land on a grass strip when I fly GA, the people I rent the plane from say I can't.

You are using the same argument people use when someone on broadcast radio or TV says or does something that offends them..... as long as what was said does not violate the Pacifica Decision, or a few other things that are too long to get into here, the FCC does not act upon complaints regarding programming.

I don't like that car manufacturers force me to buckle my seat belt... I spend lots of time in the only state without a seat belt law, it is legal for me to drive without one on, but I don't see the Feds stepping in on my behalf.

Lets not bring government into our life more than they are already, if you don't like DJI's product, there are others out there

 

[MRomine]

because the FAA has no jurisdiction, DJI is not allowing the sUAV's to break any FAR, DJI is actually running a tighter ship.

The FAA says I can land on a grass strip when I fly GA, the people I rent the plane from say I can't.

You are using the same argument people use when someone on broadcast radio or TV says or does something that offends them..... as long as what was said does not violate the Pacifica Decision, or a few other things that are too long to get into here, the FCC does not act upon complaints regarding programming.

I don't like that car manufacturers force me to buckle my seat belt... I spend lots of time in the only state without a seat belt law, it is legal for me to drive without one on, but I don't see the Feds stepping in on my behalf.

Lets not bring government into our life more than they are already, if you don't like DJI's product, there are others out there

Doesn't the FAA have regulation over what flies, how it flies and where it flies in US airspace?

If you want to really build it down, automobiles, FCC etc etc are essentially the real problem at hand, there is no uniformity or consistent application of rules across an industry in any field. Because of this lack of clear non-contradictory instruction we have such a mismatch, patchwork of incompetency such as FAA/DJI.

 

[smashse]

A good thing to a degree but it is backwards. The FAA/Federal Govern't should be policing this and making the manufactures adapt to Federal regulations instead of allowing the manufactures implement whatever they think is best. If that were being done then there would not be a two step process of FAA/DJI authorization. Addiotnally LAANC does not work with a Smart Controller and DJI will not even talk with customers about when or if they plan to incorporate LAANC into their Smart Controller or why not just incorporate the LAANC system into the Go4 app?

Yes, but now you have a US agency saying they want to regulate a foreign company, and saying that it is about profit, how much did DJI spend to implement and incorporate their Geofencing, plus cost of keeping it updated every month, plus the cost of hosting it online, minus the fee they charge for unlocking (free) and how can you even think they were motivated by profit?

Then think of the sales they miss because they geofence and some others don't. I mean it is an easy unlocking process, you just go to their website and tell them your controller and when/what you want unlocked for, I see no profit motivation, but rather implementing self policing because of all of the morons out there (see numerous other threads regarding people flying around Aeromed/lifeflight helis, inside firestations, using FPV with no spotter well beyond reasonable VLOS, harassing protected wildlife, etc) it may have been an attempt to show regulations were not needed, except for all of the copy cats that allow you to fly at 2000' within 10' of a class B airport miles from where you took off (check news for drones in/around LAX),

I mean, if unlocking were a thing that took weeks to accomplish, was more than input a few numbers into a webpage, I could see people's problems with it, but, no one complains and boycotts Ford for the seatbelt warning, no one boycotts Garmin for locking the keypad in motion, it just seems like no one cares about a company being proactive for safety, except when it comes to drones. It would be great to be able to go to a website and put in your vehicles VIN and confirm what and where you are driving, and have the seatbelt not notify, or the GPS allow typing while moving, but those companies don't even give you the option, at least DJI allows you to, very easily and quickly, disable geofencing.

Anyway, just my opinion, and it isn't like DJI is a monopoly. I see enough people breaking the FAA Rules that I consider this as a positive, or we would see drones banned in a lot more places than we already do. I'd much rather have to register my 107 Cert with my controller (we are pilots, registered flight plans would be way worse) and force all non-certified people to be limited to 200' and 1000' from their take off point, certified pilots once registered would have none of those restrictions. Why? because as a pilot I know the rules and why, most hobbyists don't even have a clue you can't fly over the superbowl while it is happening (once again, in the news).

And really, it takes a few minutes, if I submitted to unlock a zone when I arrived at a location, chances are it would be unlocked by the time I was ready to fly.