Mavic 2 Zoom even be able to takeoff after September 16 ??

[Cafguy]

I've already been doing that for the past few years by going out to 4 and 5 mile range

SORRY BUT You are one of the MAJOR reasons the FAA is implementing the RID rules in Sept. So go to the mirror and start pointing and yelling

I must ask: Do you reside in the U.S. ?
If that answer is yes might I remind you that there are members here that work closely with the F.A.A. These members that work closely with the Gov. sign agreements that pretty much makes it mandatory to report your admission of Flying beyond line of site to the FAA -( sort of like a police officer when they observe a crime or a mandatory reporter in child welfare.) So I would be careful about admitting a crime on an Internet Forum.
The Government is not gearing up to bust down the doors of the non-compliant come Sept.
BUT - If you are going to continue to fly your Drone in the manner you describe, You just might wanna keep an eye out for a letter from the F.A.A.
R.I.D will be used to prosecute the repeat offender NOT to spy on anyone with a drone. There are not enough Government employees to do anything near that.
Lastly take a breath - Go to google and search for RID module.- DON'T PANIC

 

[anotherlab]

Right now, the onus of RID-compliance is 100% on the consumer -- but how long before the FAA starts mailing out threatening letters to the manufacturers telling them to enforce RID compliance in their drones or else prevent them from taking off?

That would change the terms of the existing RID regulation. If they ever decided to request an action that the manufacturer could not enforce, it would take months to go through the FAA's own channels. Since all new devices will have RID, the older devices will slowly leave the market as they wear out.

 

[Mavic-Master88]

I've flown my mav.2's exclusively in airplane mode for over two years and have no intention of opening them up to a live internet connection again. So far: no problems with getting em up in the air.
On top of that: RID is already installed with the Mav 2's and with update *.**.0790, the option to switch it off has been disabled.

I'm wondering if DJI has a secret "back door" that forces the controller or bird to communicate with their servers, whether the operator updates the firmware or not?

This would allow them to ground all older models and prevent takeoff, in case the FAA decides to play hardball with manufacturers on RID compliance.

 

[Mavic-Master88]

That would change the terms of the existing RID regulation. If they ever decided to request an action that the manufacturer could not enforce, it would take months to go through the FAA's own channels. Since all new devices will have RID, the older devices will slowly leave the market as they wear out.

So let me ask this --- if I buy a Dronetag Beacon and register it with all my required information --- and then I leave it in my car when I go out flying my M2Z somewhere, am I really breaking the RID rules? If a cop rolls up on me and demands to see my drone, then I can tell him/her that my Dronetag Beacon must have lost it's sticky grip and fell off the drone during flight. I haven't broken any rules at this point. So what can the FAA do to me if I followed all their dumb rules?

 

[anotherlab]

I'm wondering if DJI has a secret "back door" that forces the controller or bird to communicate with their servers, whether the operator updates the firmware or not?

This would allow them to ground all older models and prevent takeoff, in case the FAA decides to play hardball with manufacturers on RID compliance.

Nope, nope, and nope.

Even if DJI has a backdoor (and none has ever been found), DJI is a business and it would make zero sense for them to completely break any trust between them and their customers.

 

[Felix le Chat]

I'm wondering if DJI has a secret "back door" that forces the controller or bird to communicate with their servers, whether the operator updates the firmware or not?

This would allow them to ground all older models and prevent takeoff, in case the FAA decides to play hardball with manufacturers on RID compliance.

I'm over the other side of the pond, so I can't comment about the FAA, but EASA and the Brit CAA are going down quite a disturbing path, if you're interested, log in to EU.GOV and search for a working group titled EUROCAE ED.269. One of their overarching aims is to enforce something very similar.

 

[Mavic-Master88]

Lastly take a breath - Go to google and search for RID module.- DON'T PANIC

Trust me, I've been using the Ole Google Machines for the past 20 years and know them well.

So if I buy a Dronetag Beacon and register it with my information --- then I'm 100% in compliance with FAA regulations, correct? So if I go out flying one day and decide to leave my Beacon in my car while my M2Z is out to 3 or 4 mile range, and a cop rolls up on me in a public park and says "Hey boy, show me your drone and the attached RID module", do I panic and tell him/her about the Beacon sitting in my car, or do I fib a little and say the Beacon must have fell off the drone during flight? Because at that point, I can either incriminate myself or allow my Consitutional rights to protect me!

 

[Mavic-Master88]

I'm over the other side of the pond, so I can't comment about the FAA, but EASA and the Brit CAA are going down quite a disturbing path, if you're interested, log in to EU.GOV and search for a working group titled EUROCAE ED.269. One of their overarching aims is to enforce something very similar.

I can easily see lots of "disturbing" developments to proceed here in the U.S. as well.

There is no way the FAA is going to allow add-on RID modules to be the only legal requirement for many years to come. It totally defeats the primary intent of what RID is all about --- enabling law enforcement to get operator information about a drone in flight.

The ONLY way to enforce the true intent of Remote ID is to force ALL drones to broadcast the required information for every second the UAV is in flight or else the UAV is not allowed to takeoff. Full stop, case closed. However the manufacturers need to implement that requirement is yet to be determined. But it will definitely happen.

 

[Cafguy]

Trust me, I've been using the Ole Google Machines for the past 20 years and know them well.

So if I buy a Dronetag Beacon and register it with my information --- then I'm 100% in compliance with FAA regulations, correct? So if I go out flying one day and decide to leave my Beacon in my car while my M2Z is out to 3 or 4 mile range, and a cop rolls up on me in a public park and says "Hey boy, show me your drone and the attached RID module", do I panic and tell him/her about the Beacon sitting in my car, or do I fib a little and say the Beacon must have fell off the drone during flight? Because at that point, I can either incriminate myself or allow my Consitutional rights to protect me!

1. Yes you will be 100%
2. At that range you are already flying illegal and the fine for beyond visual range is STEEP (you can't afford it I promise you).
3.Police officers do not enforce federal laws.
4. Saying your beacon fell off will get you yet another fine to go with you beyond VLOS ticket (For not securing an object to an aircraft) and this one is VERY STEEP

 

[umanbean]

I need to know a very basic thing -- will my Mavic 2 Zoom even get six inches off the ground on the morning of September 17 ??

Basically, of course it will.

 

[Mavic-Master88]

Even if DJI has a backdoor (and none has ever been found), DJI is a business and it would make zero sense for them to completely break any trust between them and their customers.

I'm assuming you never heard about the "Laser Printer Yellow Dots" conspiracy theory floating around in the 1980's and 90's that was proven to be true in 2004? Go read about it and then tell me that manufacturers don't do things that would break trust with their customers, because it happens all the time.

 

[umanbean]

This is FASCISM, folks!

This is sensationalism, folks!

 

[Mavic-Master88]

4. Saying your beacon fell off will get you yet another fine to go with you beyond VLOS ticket (For not securing an object to an aircraft) and this one is VERY STEEP

There is nothing in the RID rules that say a fine can be imposed if an add-on module falls off during flight

 

[anotherlab]

Trust me, I've been using the Ole Google Machines for the past 20 years and know them well.

So if I buy a Dronetag Beacon and register it with my information --- then I'm 100% in compliance with FAA regulations, correct? So if I go out flying one day and decide to leave my Beacon in my car while my M2Z is out to 3 or 4 mile range, and a cop rolls up on me in a public park and says "Hey boy, show me your drone and the attached RID module", do I panic and tell him/her about the Beacon sitting in my car, or do I fib a little and say the Beacon must have fell off the drone during flight? Because at that point, I can either incriminate myself or allow my Consitutional rights to protect me!

What "constitutional right" is the right to lie to a law enforcement officer?

In the town that I live in, you are required to have an intrusion detection alarm mounted to your swimming pool when no one is in the pool. Your pool permit will not be approved without one. Once your pool permit has been approved, you are not being monitored to verify that the pool alarm is always in place. The same principle applies to external R ID devices. You are expected to follow the rules and regulations in the jurisdiction that you are in.

 

[mavic3usa]

Right now, the onus of RID-compliance is 100% on the consumer -- but how long before the FAA starts mailing out threatening letters to the manufacturers telling them to enforce RID compliance in their drones or else prevent them from taking off?

Why would the FAA change their mind and start telling manufacturers that standard remote ID is the only option when they've already said the broadcast module is an option AND the manufacturers don't have to be the one's providing it?

If you're going to "suppose" then what if the FAA just grounds all old drones regardless?

 

[Mavic-Master88]

What "constitutional right" is the right to lie to a law enforcement officer?

In the town that I live in, you are required to have an intrusion detection alarm mounted to your swimming pool when no one is in the pool. Your pool permit will not be approved without one. Once your pool permit has been approved, you are not being monitored to verify that the pool alarm is always in place. The same principle applies to external R ID devices. You are expected to follow the rules and regulations in the jurisdiction that you are in.

I just can't believe that "stick on" modules like the Dronetag Beacon will be cool with the FAA going forward.

If I drive around on the roads with my license plate not visible or missing on the back of my vehicle, then any cop can pull me over and fine me for that violation and also find out my true identity by checking my driver license or running the VIN. How is this same logic going to apply to a cop seeing a drone flying over his/her head and in the direction of a military base or nuclear power plant? The cop can't "pull over" my drone to seek further information about me. All he/she can do is point their little RID thingy at my drone and try to get the broadcasted information from my Dronetag Beacon, but I can easily leave it off and still be in compliance with the law. Just like you said about the pool alarm, the only legal requirement is to buy the intrusion alarm and register it, not to have it constantly prove that it's actually working every second of every day.

 

[umanbean]

There is nothing in the RID rules that say a fine can be imposed if an add-on module falls off during flight

If you're going to say it fell off, better not 'leave it in your car' as you said earlier - where it can be located.

 

[Meta4]

I'm wondering if DJI has a secret "back door" that forces the controller or bird to communicate with their servers, whether the operator updates the firmware or not?

Only in your imagination.
But you are so far down your paranoid rabbit hole, nothing anyone says is going to make any difference to you.

 

[mavic3usa]

...or maybe McMaster works for the competition and is here to bring up this old issue again (since it had apparently died down) and he's here to sew discord and conjure up doubt in the millions of DJI drone flyers that their equipment will be grounded overnight in the middle of September. Imagine this, everyone waking up to a brick AND no answers or solutions!

I get it, for some folks the pressure is mounting as we approach the date. This is a big deal for some and it's not usual for a few people to start to panic. Please calm down.

 

[Mavic-Master88]

Why would the FAA change their mind and start telling manufacturers that standard remote ID is the only option when they've already said the broadcast module is an option AND the manufacturers don't have to be the one's providing it?

If you're going to "suppose" then what if the FAA just grounds all old drones regardless?

I just can't see the FAA being cool with add-on modules for years to come.

Just because you buy and register a Dronetag Beacon for your UAV doesn't really mean anything when it comes to find out the identity of a mysterious drone flying over a cop's head. As far as the operator is concerned, you've met all requirments of the law when you bought the Beacon and registered it with the FAA, but there is nothing in the law that says you must ensure the Beacon is always operating perfectly while your drone is in flight.