Flying in airspace/NFZ without permisson

[dfb]

Things to come...…….

 

[freightshaker]

Not happy about a private company or government playing nanny. If you wanted a full sized drone, comparable to a Mavic Pro then get the Autel EVO. Has a better camera & gimbal. American based company with local support. DJI syncs your data so they're basically able to see everything you do, in China. Whereas Autel doesn't sync any of your data. I heard someone had a problem with a battery, was sent a replacement immediately, DJI waits till they receive the defective part, scrutinize it then sends the replacement part. Now I'm NOT advocating flying over 1600 or playing chicken with airliners by any means but may DJI imposed NFZ's are unjustified. For example, I live just under 5 miles from a small airport, the maps say 200' which is pleanty of altitude for me, I rarely even go over 150' so NFZ's should be based on that. I'm able to carry a firearm in public & drive my vehicle on public roads responsibly. I haven't shot anyone or run anyone down. I've gotten those temporary unlocks from DJI & don't do anything crazy like going to 13,000' or anything.

 

[EricJT]

Not happy about a private company or government playing nanny. If you wanted a full sized drone, comparable to a Mavic Pro then get the Autel EVO. Has a better camera & gimbal. American based company with local support. DJI syncs your data so they're basically able to see everything you do, in China. Whereas Autel doesn't sync any of your data. I heard someone had a problem with a battery, was sent a replacement immediately, DJI waits till they receive the defective part, scrutinize it then sends the replacement part. Now I'm NOT advocating flying over 1600 or playing chicken with airliners by any means but may DJI imposed NFZ's are unjustified. For example, I live just under 5 miles from a small airport, the maps say 200' which is pleanty of altitude for me, I rarely even go over 150' so NFZ's should be based on that. I'm able to carry a firearm in public & drive my vehicle on public roads responsibly. I haven't shot anyone or run anyone down. I've gotten those temporary unlocks from DJI & don't do anything crazy like going to 13,000' or anything.

Enjoy your Autel and others will enjoy their drone of choice.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

I don't think the main issues is whether there should or should not be regulations but who should enforce those regulations.

The governing body is the FAA. If they FAA mandated manufacturers to include software/hardware that insured a regulation wasn't violated I'd have no problem with DJI complying with that mandate. The situation now is DJI has taken it upon themselves to enforce regulations to the point that in some situations they have exceeded what was required and/or the user has to request permission, authorization, unlock even after the controlling authority has given authorization for the operation. Of course this is all done under the guise of public safety, the catch phrase politicians like to use when they are trying to justify a new infringement on personal rights and freedoms.

I think a lot of people that see no problem with DJI NFZ would have a different view if enforcement measures were put in place by a the manufacturer, things not mandated to be in place by the federal government, when you buy a car, motorcycle, boat, airplane, smartphone, so that you couldn't violate some law or regulation governing its use. How do you think it would impact sales if Ford announced tomorrow they were going to put GPS sensors and governors in every vehicle that would limit the speed of the car to the posted speed limit on whatever road you were traveling on?

 

[dawgpilot]

I don't think the main issues is whether there should or should not be regulations but who should enforce those regulations.

The governing body is the FAA. If they FAA mandated manufacturers to include software/hardware that insured a regulation wasn't violated I'd have no problem with DJI complying with that mandate. The situation now is DJI has taken it upon themselves to enforce regulations to the point that in some situations they have exceeded what was required and/or the user has to request permission, authorization, unlock even after the controlling authority has given authorization for the operation. Of course this is all done under the guise of public safety, the catch phrase politicians like to use when they are trying to justify a new infringement on personal rights and freedoms.

I think a lot of people that see no problem with DJI NFZ would have a different view if enforcement measures were put in place by a the manufacturer, things not mandated to be in place by the federal government, when you buy a car, motorcycle, boat, airplane, smartphone, so that you couldn't violate some law or regulation governing its use. How do you think it would impact sales if Ford announced tomorrow they were going to put GPS sensors and governors in every vehicle that would limit the speed of the car to the posted speed limit on whatever road you were traveling on?

I feel like this argument keeps coming up, but there are clear differences between the drone and car examples:

The reality is, drones are relatively "new" technology, and it wouldn't take much for Congress to just outright ban them or severely limit where you could fly them. This would devastate drone manufacturers like DJI, so they self-regulate with their software to try to reduce the risk of negative headlines that would impact their business. Look whats happened in the UK due to the "Gatwick incident."

The car example isn't really the same, because people have been driving cars for almost 100 years, so people have basically grown accustomed to the risk they impose and expect a certain amount of freedom in how a car operates. The reality is, if cars were invented for the first time in 2019, you'd likely have the government outright banning them or imposing far more regulations, considering the number of people killed each year in traffic accidents. (likewise with other things like alcohol, tobacco, etc: you'd never see a government approve those products for the first time in 2019).

 

[CactusJackSlade]

Just because you don't have to register a drone does not allow you to fly in no-fly zones or near airports or any controlled airspace size is irrelevant when you talk about controlled airspace

 

[Deleted member 93449]

I feel like this argument keeps coming up, but there are clear differences between the drone and car examples:

The reality is, drones are relatively "new" technology, and it wouldn't take much for Congress to just outright ban them or severely limit where you could fly them. This would devastate drone manufacturers like DJI, so they self-regulate with their software to try to reduce the risk of negative headlines that would impact their business. Look whats happened in the UK due to the "Gatwick incident."

The car example isn't really the same, because people have been driving cars for almost 100 years, so people have basically grown accustomed to the risk they impose and expect a certain amount of freedom in how a car operates. The reality is, if cars were invented for the first time in 2019, you'd likely have the government outright banning them or imposing far more regulations, considering the number of people killed each year in traffic accidents. (likewise with other things like alcohol, tobacco, etc: you'd never see a government approve those products for the first time in 2019).

The argument for regulations with respect to cars and drones is based in public safety. You have approximate 40,000 people killed each year and millions more injured in motor vehicle accidents in the U.S. alone. If the major issue really is public safety there is a far great need for a gross imposition of corporately imposed safety features in motor vehicles versus drones in spite of the relative newness of drone technology.

Beyond that I don't think this is something that should be left to corporate entities to impose unless the government mandates them to do so, especially a foreign corporation (government) that has no legal jurisdiction over airspace in the U.S.

 

[dawgpilot]

Beyond that I don't think this is something that should be left to corporate entities to impose unless the government mandates them to do so, especially a foreign corporation (government) that has no legal jurisdiction over airspace in the U.S.

They aren't really "imposing" anything though: they are simply limiting the functionality of their product. You aren't getting fined or put in jail by DJI for any violations of those limitations, and you are free to not purchase their products if you disagree with those limitations.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

They aren't really "imposing" anything though: they are simply limiting the functionality of their product. You aren't getting fined or put in jail by DJI for any violations of those limitations, and you are free to not purchase their products if you disagree with those limitations.

You're play verbal gymnastics. If "limiting the functionality" means you can't fly in a certain air, and those limitations are based in government regulations that you are not mandated to enforce, you are "imposing" that regulation on the buyer of that product. And if getting access to that area requires an "unlock" from that corporate entity they are in fact enforcing that regulation and then giving you "permission" to fly in that area.

The semantics doesn't changes the situation. You can call it authorization, permission or unlock but the result is still the same, you don't fly until DJI says you can fly.

 

[freightshaker]

Thank you, that was my point. I have no problem with the 200' altitude restriction for my area & as I mentioned, I rarely go above 150' but a private company deciding to make their own restrictions is wrong. If they wanted to enforce the FAA's regulations then limit my altitude to 200' for said area, I could understand that.

I don't think the main issues is whether there should or should not be regulations but who should enforce those regulations.

The governing body is the FAA. If they FAA mandated manufacturers to include software/hardware that insured a regulation wasn't violated I'd have no problem with DJI complying with that mandate. The situation now is DJI has taken it upon themselves to enforce regulations to the point that in some situations they have exceeded what was required and/or the user has to request permission, authorization, unlock even after the controlling authority has given authorization for the operation. Of course this is all done under the guise of public safety, the catch phrase politicians like to use when they are trying to justify a new infringement on personal rights and freedoms.

I think a lot of people that see no problem with DJI NFZ would have a different view if enforcement measures were put in place by a the manufacturer, things not mandated to be in place by the federal government, when you buy a car, motorcycle, boat, airplane, smartphone, so that you couldn't violate some law or regulation governing its use. How do you think it would impact sales if Ford announced tomorrow they were going to put GPS sensors and governors in every vehicle that would limit the speed of the car to the posted speed limit on whatever road you were traveling on?

 

[rangemaster728]

I imagine so, since the Mini is more of a full-fledged drone with the capability to fly a couple of km away. I'm sure DJI has given it the full "fly-safe" system.

Yes...they have.

 

[Ian in London]

To the OP and original question, it's very clear cut. The FAA's ONLY exemption for sub 0.55 lb drones is they do not require registration as a hobbyist. They still do for Pt 107 and they still have all airspace and general proximity rules apply, irrespective of the weight.
Ian

 

[Thomas B]

Question answered immediately above.