Interesting survey question from DJI related to recent changes to FAA rules

[BigAl07]

I think the larger point is that a DJI package cannot "enable legal flight" in any given situation, as was implied by the question. FAA has nothing to do with it. Try flying a drone from inside your house?

DJI CAN enable legal flight under the new RID guidelines. They can alter the aircraft (weight) & components (prop CAGEs) then release Declaration of Compliance that it meets the requirements to fly OOP.

Both category 2 & 3 require a Declaration of Compliance from the manufacturer to be able to perform OOP and the manufacturers are hard at work tryin to come up with the best way to get their aircraft to be compliant.

 

[Dale D]

I recently bought my first drone, a Mini 2. A few days ago I received a notification from the DJI Fly app asking to take a survey. This was one of the questions. Seems rather relevant to recent discussions and thought I’d share.

“If DJI offered an accessory package for Mini 2 that enabled legal flight over people and moving vehicles(if your drone is registered under part 107) , but the flight time would be reduced to 12 minutes per battery, how likely would you be to buy the accessory package?”

This was an easy one- No way. Why is a small lightweight drone less dangerous in 12 minutes? Sumthing seems weird or funny about this poll.

 

[ckoerner]

This was an easy one- No way. Why is a small lightweight drone less dangerous in 12 minutes? Sumthing seems weird or funny about this poll.

I don’t think the question in the survey implies that flying time is related to risk. More like the accessory would reduce the flight time as a consequence of greater power needs (lights or increased weigh for example).

 

[66427cobra]

If you want to reduce the risk of injury, wouldn't it make more sense to require prop guards when flying over people? The risk of injury is more likely coming from the props rotating at 5000 RPM, not from the relative mass of the drone.

I think the new regs require prop guards to fly over people. Specifically, it states "Contain no exposed rotating parts that would cause lacerations". Not sure how that could mean anything other than prop guards.

The Go Fly app prevents my mini 2 from ascending to more than 100 ft. AGL with the (DJI) prop guards attached. From what I understand this is due to the added weight of the guards.

Wondering if, with the new regs, the Go Fly app will be updated to allow higher flight with added weight (prop guards, anti-collision lights, etc.).

Any insights/thoughts?

 

[BigAl07]

I think the new regs require prop guards to fly over people. Specifically, it states "Contain no exposed rotating parts that would cause lacerations". Not sure how that could mean anything other than prop guards.

The Go Fly app prevents my mini 2 from ascending to more than 100 ft. AGL with the (DJI) prop guards attached. From what I understand this is due to the added weight of the guards.

Wondering if, with the new regs, the Go Fly app will be updated to allow higher flight with added weight (prop guards, anti-collision lights, etc.).

Any insights/thoughts?

I can't "weight in" (see what I did there) on the prop guards vs FLY ap but I can tell you this... Prop Guards will not meet the criteria for "Contain no exposed rotating parts that would cause lacerations"

In order to meet that criteria you'll need Prop CAGES which are even more restrictive (aerodynamically) and heavier than Prop Guards.

It's important to note that other "measures" can come into play that could help meet the requirements. Some form of "inertial motor kills system" (it would kill motors in a tumbling action) has been mentioned several times but that system does nothin to increase safety for a merely reckless flying operator.

 

[Dogpilot]

You know DJI already has lighter batteries for the Japanese spec Mini 2. They reduce the weight to under 200 g and limit the flight time to around 12 minutes. They just have the distribution regionally blocked at the moment.

Now reducing kinetic impact is nice and protecting unwitting victims from he whirling blades of death is admirable. 200 or 250 g is still going to smart when it impacts you after a 50-100' fall. I would venture to guess, statistically most of the "Fall out of the sky" scenarios would be blades not actually turning. This most likely being caused by having a tiny limited battery exhausting well before you expected it to.

 

[eznoh]

I recently bought my first drone, a Mini 2. A few days ago I received a notification from the DJI Fly app asking to take a survey. This was one of the questions. Seems rather relevant to recent discussions and thought I’d share.

“If DJI offered an accessory package for Mini 2 that enabled legal flight over people and moving vehicles(if your drone is registered under part 107) , but the flight time would be reduced to 12 minutes per battery, how likely would you be to buy the accessory package?”

Nope.

 

[Tolipa]

Maybe they want to sell us a parachute and the time will decrease because of the weight, who knows what they have in their mind

Something like this is very likely, especially for over people.

 

[RicGPDX]

Sounds like they plan to make lighter batteries. I would if I was planning to film over people/moving vehicles. Then use the regular batteries for everything else.

That sounds really weird. Weight is rarely an issue for causing a reportable (Part 107) injury, it's the props. I was messing around with my Tello (with prop guards) indoors on a rainy day and got a little too close to a potted palm. As a result, I had a lot of green confetti to clean up.

 

[SethB]

That sounds really weird. Weight is rarely an issue for causing a reportable (Part 107) injury, it's the props. I was messing around with my Tello (with prop guards) indoors on a rainy day and got a little too close to a potted palm. As a result, I had a lot of green confetti to clean up.

Ric! How nice to find you here
Greetings from Cascade!

I think this is about DJI preparing for the the new regs that will set out how we will be able to (with training) fly over people. The regs cover skin laceration and kinetic force. DJI may have an easier path to certify a Mini 2 because it is so light. Full propeller cages on it might account for shorter air time.

 

[brett8883]

I can't "weight in" (see what I did there) on the prop guards vs FLY ap but I can tell you this... Prop Guards will not meet the criteria for "Contain no exposed rotating parts that would cause lacerations"

In order to meet that criteria you'll need Prop CAGES which are even more restrictive (aerodynamically) and heavier than Prop Guards.

It's important to note that other "measures" can come into play that could help meet the requirements. Some form of "inertial motor kills system" (it would kill motors in a tumbling action) has been mentioned several times but that system does nothin to increase safety for a merely reckless flying operator.

No they mean prop guards. This has come up before when discussing this. It sounds like they mean prop cages but the FAA has been accepting prop guards in §107.39 waivers.

The FAA understands that cages drastically decrease stability and are more of a hazard than a benefit.

 

[brett8883]

I agree that it sounds like lighter batteries and prop guards. They need the lighter batteries so the drone weighs less than .55 lbs to qualify for category 1 which does not require a Means of Compliance or Declaration of Compliance to the FAA. It’s the path of least resistance and would explain the decrease in flight time.

 

[wsalopek]

I can't "weight in" (see what I did there) on the prop guards vs FLY ap but I can tell you this... Prop Guards will not meet the criteria for "Contain no exposed rotating parts that would cause lacerations"

In order to meet that criteria you'll need Prop CAGES which are even more restrictive (aerodynamically) and heavier than Prop Guards.

It's important to note that other "measures" can come into play that could help meet the requirements. Some form of "inertial motor kills system" (it would kill motors in a tumbling action) has been mentioned several times but that system does nothin to increase safety for a merely reckless flying operator.

The "reckless operator" is not a factor here, as any of us, at any time, could fly our drones into people or property...meaning the equipment, like prop cages, only has to enable LEGAL flying, not protect the public from reckless operators (even though the cages would of course help in that case).

 

[PaulDoneDrone]

I recently bought my first drone, a Mini 2. A few days ago I received a notification from the DJI Fly app asking to take a survey. This was one of the questions. Seems rather relevant to recent discussions and thought I’d share.

“If DJI offered an accessory package for Mini 2 that enabled legal flight over people and moving vehicles(if your drone is registered under part 107) , but the flight time would be reduced to 12 minutes per battery, how likely would you be to buy the accessory package?”

at 12min flight drone will be safer to fly over people? Without more context this sounds strange at best, one could argue any dirrection...

So NO

 

[brett8883]

at 12min flight drone will be safer to fly over people? Without more context this sounds strange at best, one could argue any dirrection...

So NO

Well that’s what you would need to fly over people so it’s that or nothing.

 

[PaulDoneDrone]

Well that’s what you would need to fly over people so it’s that or nothing.

at this moment in Canada I fly over people legally, this new law could make my current state illegal.

so Noting

 

[brett8883]

at this moment in Canada I fly over people legally, this new law could make my current state illegal.

so Noting

Ah yea so obviously it wouldn’t make sense in Canada. I think this is specifically for FAA regulations in the US