If governments world-wide force manufactures of hobby-level drones to introduce hard and unhackable limits on range and height .......

[Yorkshire_Pud]

e.g. a 500m range limit and a 120m relative to the take off point height limit, do you think it will kill off hobby flying for photographic etc. purposes and or perhaps kill off the manufacture of hobby level drones, particularly by the big manufacturers?


This is prompted by the pending under-250g rule in the EU, which, truthfully, I can see being adopted by other governments.

 

[shb]

They're not gonna do that, so why worry about it?

 

[GFields]

Did you mean to write, "unhackable"

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

Did you mean to write, "unhackable"

Yes, thanks, corrected it already.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

They're not gonna do that, so why worry about it?

And you know this ....... how?
Were you aware of the pending EU height rule before the threads of last week concerning it, if so how?
Are or were you aware that, in India, there was, and maybe still is, a something like 50ft or perhaps 50m relative to the take off point height limit for the Mavic Mini and/or perhaps the Mini 2?
If two 'governments' can do it why not more?

 

[mavic3usa]

e.g. a 500m range limit and a 120m relative to the take off point height limit, do you think it will kill off hobby flying for photographic etc. purposes and or perhaps kill off the manufacture of hobby level drones, particularly by the big manufacturers?


This is prompted by the pending under-250g rule in the EU, which, truthfully, I can see being adopted by other governments.

I am going to agree with you on this one. This for sure can happen but I don't think it will kill off the hobby right away. Perhaps over time when no one is willing to pay a lot of money for expensive drones that are crippled. At that point, I think you would see a market start to develop of older drones that continue to perform as expected.

I generally don't believe one incident can trigger a rule change but in this case, I can see one bad incident causing the government to rethink the rules when it comes to drone performance such as how long can they fly, how far they can reach, how fast they can go, how high they can fly, whether waypoints can continue autonomously until the battery is depleted, or even how quiet they can become. I've seen it before and the current state of drones means we are open to such restrictions, too. Sadly, DJI will comply.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

I am going to agree with you on this one. This for sure can happen but I don't think it will kill off the hobby right away. Perhaps over time when no one is willing to pay a lot of money for expensive drones that are crippled. At that point, I think you would see a market start to develop of older drones that continue to perform as expected.

I generally don't believe one incident can trigger a rule change but in this case, I can see one bad incident causing the government to rethink the rules when it comes to drone performance such as how long can they fly, how far they can reach, how fast they can go, how high they can fly, whether waypoints can continue autonomously until the battery is depleted, or even how quiet they can become. I've seen it before and the current state of drones means we are open to such restrictions, too. Sadly, DJI will comply.

The only bit we would disagree about is that I think DJI HAS to comply rather than "will comply". Otherwise they would likely lose their access to the relevant market, e.g. the "plus" battery for the Mini 3, it is not available from DJI in the UK or Europe.

 

[akdrone]

There has not been a hint of that. It would destroy the entire industry and it is too big with too much big money for that to happen. It has happened in a small portion of the market in the E.U. but it's inconceivable it would happen with larger drones. If it did there would be lawsuits and it would be fought in court. I don't see it but yeah...I would be done flying for sure as I live surrounded by mountains and fly well above 400feet over my launch on a regular basis.

 

[mavic3usa]

The only bit we would disagree about is that I think DJI HAS to comply rather than "will comply". Otherwise they would likely lose their access to the relevant market, e.g. the "plus" battery for the Mini 3, it is not available from DJI in the UK or Europe.

There is a law that says DJI cannot sell the "plus" battery in the UK/EU?

Or did DJI comply with a different law to get a marking that DJI thought they would violate should they sell the plus battery in the UK/EU? This sounds like a business decision, not compliance with a law. If DJI gives up the rating, can they sell the battery?

The best analogy to our discussion would be if DJI disables the Mini 3/4 when you insert a plus battery in the UK/EU which I do not believe they do but sadly if the government told them to take that extra step, I believe DJI would comply.

BTW, we operate a little differently over on this side of the pond. Governments don't tell private companies what to do. They make the rules and the companies decide if, when, and how they're going to comply.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Pure opinion, but given the complete absence of issues with recreational RC aircraft in the US, i doubt there will be any significant changes to the sub-250g category.

RID, the only change of significance to the recreational pilot in the US in recent years, was predicated on airspace management anticipating an explosion of NVLOS (No VLOS) commercial semi-autonomous flights, initially mostly deliveries.

The rules governing recreational flying have actually been pretty stable for quite some time now. A few minor changes like requiring registration and getting a TRUST cert have been added, but nothing really impacting where and how we can fly.

It still comes down to the same 4 main rules: Fly where allowed, stay away from people, stay under 400' AGL, VLOS. There are many finer details that a rec pilot must be aware of and comply with, but abiding the basic 4 will keep you out of any serious trouble.

Absent a good reason, I doubt that's going to change much any time soon.

 

[Droning on and on...]

There is a law that says DJI cannot sell the "plus" battery in the UK/EU?

Is it a law, or rather a marketing decision by DJI?

Since the extended battery pushes the Mini3P into the next category, it makes some sense that people willing to jump through the hoops to fly in that category might not be too interested in the Mini3P for the purposes they did that hoop-jumping in the first place.

Our fellow pilots in the EU most certainly could illuminate this kind of logic a lot better than me. I'm spoiled over here in the US.

 

[Droning on and on...]

One more thought: Were this to happen, the serious hobbyists would shift to BNF drones, like iFlight birds, using BetaFlight as the Flight Controller, avoiding the restrictions.

The curious masses that buy DJI products today, otherwise completely ignorant about what they're doing, will carry on without noticing anything.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

There is a law that says DJI cannot sell the "plus" battery in the UK/EU?

There probably is not but use of the plus battery would put the Mini 3/4 over 250g so it's compliance with the spirit of the law if nothing else.

The best analogy to our discussion would be if DJI disables the Mini 3/4 when you insert a plus battery in the UK/EU which I do not believe they do

True.

Governments don't tell private companies what to do. They make the rules and the companies decide if, when, and how they're going to comply.

So are you saying the introduction of seat belts in cars by USA car manufacturers is entirely voluntary and that, should they choose to do so, they could stop fitting them.
Are you suggesting that if the law says that manufactures must implement feature xyz the manufacturers should ignore that law or withdraw from the relevant market. I believe that part of the pending EU regulation have such a rule.
Anyway I take it neither of us is going to changeour viewpoint on this.

 

[Felix le Chat]

I am going to agree with you on this one. This for sure can happen but I don't think it will kill off the hobby right away. Perhaps over time when no one is willing to pay a lot of money for expensive drones that are crippled. At that point, I think you would see a market start to develop of older drones that continue to perform as expected.

I generally don't believe one incident can trigger a rule change but in this case, I can see one bad incident causing the government to rethink the rules when it comes to drone performance such as how long can they fly, how far they can reach, how fast they can go, how high they can fly, whether waypoints can continue autonomously until the battery is depleted, or even how quiet they can become. I've seen it before and the current state of drones means we are open to such restrictions, too. Sadly, DJI will comply.

Back in 2018, the FAA were spearheading a legislative campaign to limit maximum drone flight to the length of a football field and at a height not in excess of 400'. So far they've got one out of two under their belt. They still have to work out how to properly enforce VLOS, which is the same football field bear wearing a different jacket.
The EU is a completely different entity to any form of government by consent. It is in the process of building a legislative framework that at best will constrain both the range and the altitude of non-commercial drone traffic with the upcoming U-SPACE initiative. Britain will simply march along to the beat of the Euro drum with minor, nonsensical amendments.
If DJI wants to continue selling drones to their massive customer base, it will comply with demands on both sides of the Pond.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

small portion of the market in the E.U

Is the EU a small market place for DJI hobby-level drones?

 

[mavic3usa]

So are you saying the introduction of seat belts in cars by USA car manufacturers is entirely voluntary and that, should they choose to do so, they could stop fitting them.
Are you suggesting that if the law says that manufactures must implement feature xyz the manufacturers should ignore that law or withdraw from the relevant market. I believe that part of the pending EU regulation have such a rule.
Anyway I take it neither of us is going to changeour viewpoint on this.

I will agree it is probably a distinction without a difference. Without a law, US companies decide what they will do. Even with a law, the company could make other decisions. Especially if those laws don't come under the prevue of the government. However, something like auto safety is well-known and most recently, there was a law passed to mandate backup cameras in certain vehicles. Pretty sure a mandate to install backup camera in all vehicles on the road, new AND old, would have been ignored. Which is why this question is hard to address because the US government wouldn't do this because they know it won't work.

But yes, the company could have stopped making those vehicles or modified the vehicle to get around the law, or if they did nothing they wouldn't be able to legally sell them. To me that's a big difference than telling a company to limit how fast your car can accelerate or how wide it can turn or how warm or cool you can get inside the cabin. Or, high how your drone can fly or how far away it can go. I should have mentioned bona fide safety related mandates have a far better chance of gaining compliance. Attempts to limit the top speed of vehicles don't work. Attempts to limit how much pollution is emitted do work. That's the American way but I agree it doesn't always work out that way. As far as seatbelts, this is interesting: A Seat Belt History Timeline

 

[DARKSeifer]

There's not such thing as unhackable, and you will still be able to fly your old drones.

My mini 2 for example doesn't have any limitation, doesn't have geofencing nor altitude limit (it can climb to 1600m before the battery forces you down) and works in FCC with the latest firmware available.

If those limitations came to drones, there would be a ton of hackers working on breaking it because whoever is able to hack it, will make a ton of money, just like the FCC hacks, 20-40 bucks per hack, multiplied by thousands of drones... yep, pretty lucrative.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

and you will still be able to fly your old drones.

My mini 2 for example doesn't have any limitation, doesn't have geofencing nor altitude limit (it can climb to 1600m before the battery forces you down) and works in FCC with the latest firmware available.

From post 14 in Mini 4 in EASA will be capped to 120m no matter what "Mini 4 in EASA will be capped to 120m no matter what" in the DJI Mini 4 Pro forum

In accordance with the same European Drone Regulation, all other currently-available drones of the DJI Mini series (e.g. Mini 2 SE, Mini 3, Mini 3 Pro) will be restricted to an altitude limit of 120m later this year via a DJI firmware

 

[Deleted member 177263]

e.g. a 500m range limit and a 120m relative to the take off point height limit, do you think it will kill off hobby flying for photographic etc. purposes and or perhaps kill off the manufacture of hobby level drones, particularly by the big manufacturers?


This is prompted by the pending under-250g rule in the EU, which, truthfully, I can see being adopted by other governments.

if they did that I guess I'd be a criminal because I'm not stopping.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

if they did that I guess I'd be a criminal because I'm not stopping.

And that attitude is precisely why I forsee governments taking this route, if people won't voluntarily comply then force the manufacturers to build-in limits that end up penalising everyone. Well done!