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

[Deleted member 94047]

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

Thank you for that example but I really don't think it is equivalent to the "you cannot take off and hover at 2 meters in your back yard" level of restriction that DJI is currently implementing. A max height and max horizontal distance from the launch spot would, for example, make a lot of sense when a pilot is operating inside a restricted zone. So, I humbly ask for another example where a manufacturer disables your equipment so that you cannot violate a law.

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.

I did not advocate for self-regulation. I was agreeing with a prior post which stated regulation, and particularly enforcemnt of laws is the job of a government. Most countries now have laws governing the use of sUAVs. If someone violates said laws, slap them with a harsh fine or even possible jail time depending on the nature of the violation. You can lose your driver's license for repeated offenses and violations. Operating a sUAV is not an innate and irrevocable right. I don't see why a points system like the one used for discouraging reckless and irresponsible driving cannot be applied to the operation of sUAVs. But none of this should be a decision made by DJI. We have governments which, at least in principle, are accountable to the public. If a particular law is undesirable or too infringing on your rights, you can campaign for its amendment/revocation. You can sue the government, lobby law makers, elect someone who shares your concerns. I very well understand that this system is not without its flaws, but it at least gives you a recourse. Who is DJI accountable to? How do you object to the decisions they make which affect your flying experience and severely undermine the usability of equipment that you bought? And who gave them the right or mandate to implement these restrictions? In the case of car manufacturers limiting top speeds that you brought up earlier, I am sure they were required by law to do this. DJI has it backwards, they don't want laws to be debated and passed, they would rather be the law themselves.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

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.

First, being part 107 AND a long time RC enthusiast, I am quite familiar with the proposals, and the draconian results they may have on the industry. That is precisely my point. For all of DJIs trying to be out in front, we are now facing onerous regulation despite their efforts. The FAA didn’t even take their advice with regard to RID broadcast methodology. All they have done is demonstrate how technologically easy it will be to give government entities, everything they want... and more.

As for not nannying, I have had several occasions where I was not allowed to perform a perfectly legal operation, because of over zealous software.

That should not be their task. They build a dynamite product and have a huge market because of that. That should be enough.

 

[lookout]

My city tried to formulate a drone ordinance last year. Even before I had anything to do with drones because I'm still skeptical about them, the city was all rampant about passing an ordinance with an emergency clause. It was geared for peepy tom drones.

They got all double speak about how they were borrowing the federal legislation without stepping all over the federal jurisdiction. They also borrowed the legislation in such a way that the city attorney had a problem with including a part regarding weaponized drones into a typical 30/60/90 jail sentence and/or fines along with the peepy tom parts. They couldn't quite make it work.

From 20 years ago, they didn't understand any more about the drones bigger brother the helicopter. It's a controversy there too.

I hit some major points on them including the fact that they have the audacity to pass an ordinance over peepy toms when they are some of the worst offenders. Even though I'm not totally sure about what my video screen is showing me (left to some interpretation, where'd that tree come from?), I even stated that people fly by wire with their cameras. So it's not always a peepy tom problem.

They want access to your video doorbell. They want access to your internet/phone/texting activity. They even look at you through your smart phone camera. They have cameras stacked everywhere. And they encrypt all of their public safety trunking system for the region "because of terrorists." But all they are worried about is the guy with the drone.

Right now I'm not sure the federal government knows what they are doing. AOPA had a campaign to prevent states and cities from drafting their own ordinances regarding drones and leave it to the feds and their airspace.

 

[lookout]

I wonder if that's why the little toy drones only go 100 meters. Just in case I can gyrate it straight up somehow and it actually can get that high without drifting.

 

[lookout]

Law in Oregon can allow a person to bring charges against a person flying a drone less than 400 feet over their property? So I can't fly above 400 feet, and I can't fly below 400 feet...I would have to stay right at 400 feet...even during a launch...??

 

[Hegemone]

Law in Oregon can allow a person to bring charges against a person flying a drone less than 400 feet over their property? So I can't fly above 400 feet, and I can't fly below 400 feet...I would have to stay right at 400 feet...even during a launch...??

Sounds like you are interpreting this correctly. I guess get permission to fly over someone's property, find public property to fly on, fly over your own property, or move to another state in which this isn't the case. Any of these options while following the FAA regulations.

It is what it is. All we can do is advocate for our hobby/busniess, speak with our vote, get involved with politics and make a change, fight the charges, pay the fines, do the time, or put our heads down and shuffle on.

 

[Flycaster]

I wonder if that's why the little toy drones only go 100 meters. Just in case I can gyrate it straight up somehow and it actually can get that high without drifting.

Because there is little power for for the radio to transmit, it just goes out of range and falls off..

 

[skiptv]

Federal Aviation Law supersedes Local or State Law. You can legally fly an inch over someones property if you want. What FAA laws tell you is that you can't be a peeping tom. As in if your drone is hovering outside a home owners bedroom window, or you are hovering over a pool with people in it, you are breaking privacy laws.
Of course if thats the local law, you could get fined, then its up to you to take it to court to prove its illegal. So that will cost money. Also you could always not fly directly over someones house. Oh, if you are going to push the law make sure you have a FAA license and you have got authorization to fly in the area, if you need it.

 

[Flycaster]

Law in Oregon can allow a person to bring charges against a person flying a drone less than 400 feet over their property? So I can't fly above 400 feet, and I can't fly below 400 feet...I would have to stay right at 400 feet...even during a launch...??

Sure, thay can bring charges, but would be ultimately referred to FAA regs. They control the airspace, not the to the local/state authorities.

Just a tactic to confuse/obfuscate and intimidate....

 

[Jim Daniels]

Law in Oregon can allow a person to bring charges against a person flying a drone less than 400 feet over their property?

Which Law?
State, County, City, ??
Can you please post a link to that Law, I would like to read the verbiage.

 

[lookout]

Which Law?
State, County, City, ??
Can you please post a link to that Law, I would like to read the verbiage.

U.S. Drone Laws & Regulations - The Ultimate Guide (2020)

 

[Jim Daniels]

U.S. Drone Laws & Regulations - The Ultimate Guide (2020)

I quoted and asked Doppler to provide a link to the "Law in Oregon" he is talking about.
Do you think he is talking about the same Law you posted ??
BTW - that's a great link, the Mods should "sticky" that thing for everyone to find, (nice job lookout)

 

[Flycaster]

"I don't think so, Tim..."
That would be blown out of the courts on first pass. The FAA has jurisdiction in the air.
Period.
If they were to try to prosecute some person on this, they would have to invoke the FAA regs that were violated, States/cities/towns cannot regulate the U.S. airspace.
Again, period.

 

[Galeforce1]

The whole point of a flight ceiling (upper limit) is to ensure separation from traffic above it. The 400' AGL (above ground level) ceiling is just that - above ground, not above the top of the structure that happens to be underneath the drone at the time. A manned aircraft flying, at say 1500', should be able to rely on a separation of 1100' in this case - and not have to worry about reduced separation, and therefore increased collision risk, if there is a 500' building underneath.

It's all about separation of flight levels to reduce collision risk..

Drone pilots need to understand the reasons for the various limits, and not try to bend the rules to suit themselves - and in doing so put other aircraft at risk.

 

[LazerMan]

Law in Oregon can allow a person to bring charges against a person flying a drone less than 400 feet over their property? So I can't fly above 400 feet, and I can't fly below 400 feet...I would have to stay right at 400 feet...even during a launch...??

its an illegal law they don't control the airspace.

 

[lookout]

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

What if this site was called maveric pilots?

What did your parents not like you or something?

No, it's my handle.