New DJI Go updates, now constant nag screen when above 400feet agl.....

[PTBperegrine]

I don't know where you are, but in the UK it's illegal to fly above 400 feet.

But if you're flying up rising terrain, it's essential to fly AGL, not height above launch point.

 

[Lbesing]

When I was using my Android tablet or Galaxy S7 / S9 cellphone, I could "roll back" using that APKPURE website. But I recently upgraded to an iPad Mini 4 tablet. Aren't Apple devices restricted to installing software from Apple's app store?

I'm getting the nags about exceeding distance, both horizontal and vertical, on my iPad Mini when flying my M2P or my MP1. It get to be very annoying. But at least the iPad Mini isn't draining the battery on my controller like the Android tablet had a tendency to do.

 

[Galeforce1]

Okay, sorry if someone already posted this, but after the latest dji go app update, everytime I'm above 400 feet (even if a structure is below it that allows flying much higher etc) I get constant red banner updates on the app about not flying higher than 400 feet, I can click out of it but seconds later it comes back, and this loops forever in a cycle...

Between this and DJI making it so that the mavic cannot fly further than 100feet without using a smart device tethered to the controller, I think its more and more draconian and useless now

I think you have misunderstood the flight rules ('a structure is below it that allows flying much higher'). The 400 feet refers to 400 feet AGL (above ground level), not 400 feet above whatever building or structure you're flying over. Your drone is giving you the AGL height, which is correct.

 

[Merstham Flyer]

Okay, sorry if someone already posted this, but after the latest dji go app update, everytime I'm above 400 feet (even if a structure is below it that allows flying much higher etc) I get constant red banner updates on the app about not flying higher than 400 feet, I can click out of it but seconds later it comes back, and this loops forever in a cycle...

Between this and DJI making it so that the mavic cannot fly further than 100feet without using a smart device tethered to the controller, I think its more and more draconian and useless now

Surely flying above 400 feet (AGL) is illegal for regular pilots?
Are you suggesting that should you want to fly over an 800 foot Building/structure..... that you can legally fly 400 ft over it... meaning you are at 1200 ft AGL. I’m puzzled.

 

[sar104]

Surely flying above 400 feet (AGL) is illegal for regular pilots?
Are you suggesting that should you want to fly over an 800 foot Building/structure..... that you can legally fly 400 ft over it... meaning you are at 1200 ft AGL. I’m puzzled.

That's legal in the US for Part 107 pilots, provided that the resulting altitude doesn't exceed the LAANC limit, if applicable.

 

[Merstham Flyer]

That's legal in the US for Part 107 pilots, provided that the resulting altitude doesn't exceed the LAANC limit, if applicable.

So, you’re suggesting that all pilots posting on here complaining of warnings telling them they are over 400 ft are holders of part 107?

 

[sar104]

So, you’re suggesting that all pilots posting on here complaining of warnings telling them they are over 400 ft are holders of part 107?

I wasn't suggesting anything - just clarifying the regulation.

 

[lookout]

So, you’re suggesting that all pilots posting on here complaining of warnings telling them they are over 400 ft are holders of part 107?

The other problem is the manned aircraft don't necessarily know about this rule. And 400 feet AGL about their starting point might cause them to run into the side of a mountain.

 

[Bob4131]

So I have been in a level area for the last few weeks and have not seen this pop up. But I am going to a hilly area tomorrow. 400 ft high hills will be comman where I am going. Is there a way to turn off this warning or will it continue to pop onto the screen as I fly "up" a hill always within 400ft of the ground below the drone but perhaps 800ft above the launch point. This is common and legal in the US. It sounds like the warning is annoying at best. What is covered on the screen? Thanks for the info.

 

[TR Ganey]

The other problem is the manned aircraft don't necessarily know about this rule.

Regardless if the manned aircraft pilot known the laws rules and regulations concerning drones he/she should know the rules governing manned aircraft and if they are following those rules there shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Jim Daniels]

The OP is no longer posting on his thread -

 

[Old Cajun]

The FAA measures ground level from the ground, not the top of structures. Ground level is the base of the structkure.

 

[TR Ganey]

The FAA measures ground level from the ground, not the top of structures. Ground level is the base of the structkure.

And you would be wrong. It is legal in the USA for a 107 pilot to fly 400' above the highest point of any given structure.

 

[sar104]

The FAA measures ground level from the ground, not the top of structures. Ground level is the base of the structkure.

Did you post that without consulting 14 CFR Part 107, or were you specifically referring to the recreational exemption?

§107.51 Operating limitations for small unmanned aircraft.
A remote pilot in command and the person manipulating the flight controls of the small unmanned aircraft system must comply with all of the following operating limitations when operating a small unmanned aircraft system:

(a) The groundspeed of the small unmanned aircraft may not exceed 87 knots (100 miles per hour).​

​

(b) The altitude of the small unmanned aircraft cannot be higher than 400 feet above ground level, unless the small unmanned aircraft:​

​

(1) Is flown within a 400-foot radius of a structure; and​

​

(2) Does not fly higher than 400 feet above the structure's immediate uppermost limit.​

​

(c) The minimum flight visibility, as observed from the location of the control station must be no less than 3 statute miles. For purposes of this section, flight visibility means the average slant distance from the control station at which prominent unlighted objects may be seen and identified by day and prominent lighted objects may be seen and identified by night.​

​

(d) The minimum distance of the small unmanned aircraft from clouds must be no less than:​

​

(1) 500 feet below the cloud; and​

​

(2) 2,000 feet horizontally from the cloud.​

 

[Peterson]

Mav(er)ic, it's time to buzz the tower...

That's a negative, the pattern is full....

 

[Robert Mitchell]

It's a CYA thing. DJI wants to try and retain their huge portion of the UAS pie and it's in their best interest to show good efforts to limits us idiots from doing stupid things.

Are they obligated? No.... is it a good idea from a business standpoint? Absolutely.

I disagree. Making a fantastic product is what gets them sales. Nannying might have been their idea of getting ahead if the regulation curve but it didn’t work out so well did it? It didn’t even engender good will from many federal agencies, which are now banning their products.
I believe they miscalculated. Nannying is government’s business, not DJIs.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

And soon the FAA will be your nanny. DJI was hoping to avoid that.

So, that didn’t work out so well, did it?

FAA is about to destroy the recreational UAV hobby industry with RID. DJI just demonstrated how feasible that is.

 

[Deleted member 94047]

I disagree. Making a fantastic product is what gets them sales. Nannying might have been their idea of getting ahead if the regulation curve but it didn’t work out so well did it? It didn’t even engender good will from many federal agencies, which are now banning their products.
I believe they miscalculated. Nannying is government’s business, not DJIs.

Wish I could give you a 100 likes for this, well put Sir! I totally understand the need for regulation and enforcing laws; but that should not be DJI's responsibility. Is there another company, apart from DJI, which goes to the extent of disabling your equipment so that you can not violate a law? Genuine question since I can't think of one.

 

[Johnmcl7]

I disagree. Making a fantastic product is what gets them sales. Nannying might have been their idea of getting ahead if the regulation curve but it didn’t work out so well did it? It didn’t even engender good will from many federal agencies, which are now banning their products.
I believe they miscalculated. Nannying is government’s business, not DJIs.

DJI have absolutely not been 'nannying' given they've been allowing their drones to fly well outwith the regulations and even now are only adding warning notices and not restrictions. I'm not sure why you think 'it didn't work out so well' given DJI have one of the most dominant market positions there is and your comment about it being government business not DJI's makes even less sense, DJI are enforcing some of the rules set by the government, they haven't made up these rules themselves.

I assume you're not at all familiar with the new FAA proposals on drones which will set much stricter requirements and I expect drones with no geofencing will not be allowed so your claims DJI being wrong to be ahead of the regulation curve is likely wrong as well.

I doubt DJI want to fit their drones with any restrictions which must be a considerable headache to them but they clearly need to do it to meet regulations, look how quickly the US moved to ban Huawei devices and could easily do the same to drone models which have no geofencing or other restrictions.

 

[Johnmcl7]

Wish I could give you a 100 likes for this, well put Sir! I totally understand the need for regulation and enforcing laws; but that should not be DJI's responsibility. Is there another company, apart from DJI, which goes to the extent of disabling your equipment so that you can not violate a law? Genuine question since I can't think of one.

Perhaps laws in your country are much more lenient but I can easily think of many examples where technology is limited to prevent violating a law in Europe and going forward I expect we'll see more technology going this way. The most obvious example is cars which are limited to 155mph for years despite being able to go increasingly faster, you could argue that's still above the speed limit but the DJI restrictions also allow you to go outwith the standard limits.

I don't even understand your point, are you saying you should be free to break the law as you want? Don't make me laugh and tell me drone owners can self regulate as you can find numerous examples on this forum alone that show it's not going to happen.

Of course I would rather DJI don't regulate the drones at all especially as it's likely to impact my entirely legal flying at some point but there's so many people breaking the law by such a huge amount that I can't blame the governments or DJI for it, I blame the people who refuse to even remotely follow the rules which in turn means we're going to get increasingly restrictive limitations placed on us.