No Fly Zones

[iaincaradoc]

Not all DJI flyzones are in controlled airspace and are totally ok to fly in legally so there’s no recourse for getting those areas unlocked.

Have you tried getting them unlocked? I've got three different manual unlock zones already, and I've barely had this thing for a month. Didn't have to get anything from the FAA at all.

Just make sure you put an appropriate "end date" on your manual unlocks, or you might get out to your location and discover that you accidentally submitted for a 24-hour unlock, starting 17 hours before you submitted it, and it's expired now that you're out there without cellular coverage.

Not that I know anyone who's done that, mind you.

<NarratorVoice=MorganFreeman>
"He was, in fact, the one who did that."
</NarratorVoice>

 

[SkyeHigh]

I don't know how the law works there in New Zealand, but your view is completely the opposite of how it actually works and protects DJI (at least here in the USA).

If they do not issue any warning then they can easily be sued by anyone who flies illegally because there was no warning. That's why everything here in the USA has the dumbest warnings on the package...cup of coffee may burn you, don't hold nails in your mouth, don't step on top rung of ladder, do not eat the silica gel packet etc...

The warning and unlock feature of DJI drones is not authorizing you to fly. It is warning you that you may be flying in an area that requires permission from the proper authorities. If you proceed, it is on you since you were warned and positively affirmed that you understand.

Without the warnings, DJI would be flooded with lawsuits and we would all be paying more for these drones to cover those costs.

Reminds me of the built-in GPS warning in my car. Before it allows me to see the map, I need to accept an agreement/warning. I have honestly never bothered reading it because it's stupid and it would require me to take my eyes off the road and my hands off the wheel in order to do so.

You have all your greedy lawyers in the USA to thank for all those dumb cover my @ss warnings. Unfortunately they made their way to the UK and Australia too. They’ve made a fortune out of what in reality is simple common sense.

I spilt my hot coffee while I was driving and ouch it was hot - it’s your fault it was hot so I’ll sue you. So now everyone’s coffee has to be made cooler.

And you can add to that the ridiculous ‘agreements’ you have to accept for most software these days. Thank you lawyers!

 

[PhantomFandom]

The DJI fly zones don’t correspond to where you can actually fly legally or not. They don’t even attempt to do that.

Absolutely true and there is no dispute there.

If DJI flyzones lined up with where you actually have to get authorization to fly legally then this conversation would be different.

Again agreed. Why they don't is a totally different can of worms.

Completely preventing me from flying there is quite another.

I've mentioned this before and I'll say it again. DJI has never prevented me from flying anywhere. I've followed the unlock process and never had a problem. Sure some have experienced issues but my guess is that it's a very small percentage. Also trying to plan in advance always helps in any case.

Also, DJI doesn’t accept permissions granted through LAANC which is where we get authorization from the government to fly in controlled airspace.

Yes I am well aware of the process. The DJI apps and LAANC are completely different systems and as such, one does not "unlock" the other. Hopefully one day DJI will incorporate LAANC clearances directly within the app and do away with all of this.

To fly in a DJI Flyzone you must get an airspace waiver from the FAA and send it to DJI.

It depends on the zone. Very few require that process. Most are self unlock zones.

To use your example DJI is putting a label on its coffee that says, “Hot! You are Forbidden from drinking!” And locking the cup so there’s no way to get in.

DJI never forbids you from flying. It just takes extra steps.

Is any of this right? NO IT IS NOT. However it is where we end up in a society when people are idiots and decide they have the right to do anything they feel like doing. Then they sue the deep pockets because they can not take personal responsibility for their mistakes. So the greedy sharks (aka lawyers) file suit and the idiotic juries award huge damages.

 

[PhantomFandom]

You have all your greedy lawyers in the USA to thank for all those dumb cover my @ss warnings. Unfortunately they made their way to the UK and Australia too. They’ve made a fortune out of what in reality is simple common sense.

Absolutely agreed. It is horrible. Common sense and personal accountability have disappeared.

I spilt my hot coffee while I was driving and ouch it was hot - it’s your fault it was hot so I’ll sue you. So now everyone’s coffee has to be made cooler.

And you can add to that the ridiculous ‘agreements’ you have to accept for most software these days. Thank you lawyers!

Yes that's where we are. No end in sight.

 

[iaincaradoc]

I spilt my hot coffee while I was driving and ouch it was hot - it’s your fault it was hot so I’ll sue you. So now everyone’s coffee has to be made cooler.

Not to mention the banana-slip lawsuits.

When New Yorkers Were Menaced by Banana Peels

They slipped and fell. Really!

www.atlasobscura.com

 

[DavidT_ NZ]

I don't know how the law works there in New Zealand, but your view is completely the opposite of how it actually works and protects DJI (at least here in the USA).

If they do not issue any warning then they can easily be sued by anyone who flies illegally because there was no warning. That's why everything here in the USA has the dumbest warnings on the package...cup of coffee may burn you, don't hold nails in your mouth, don't step on top rung of ladder, do not eat the silica gel packet etc...

The warning and unlock feature of DJI drones is not authorizing you to fly. It is warning you that you may be flying in an area that requires permission from the proper authorities. If you proceed, it is on you since you were warned and positively affirmed that you understand.

Without the warnings, DJI would be flooded with lawsuits and we would all be paying more for these drones to cover those costs.

Reminds me of the built-in GPS warning in my car. Before it allows me to see the map, I need to accept an agreement/warning. I have honestly never bothered reading it because it's stupid and it would require me to take my eyes off the road and my hands off the wheel in order to do so.

The big difference there is that the GPS warning does not immobilise your car. You get the warning message then continue to use the product at your own risk. I have the same message in my car GPS. But DJI has introduced two systems. The first will alert a drone user to a flying zone and then prompt for a check box confirmation, before continuing with the Fly app (like the car GPS). The second, however, is the problem: I encountered a situation where the drone simply could not be flown off the ground at all, until I applied to DJI in China for an unlocking license, despite me having local ATC approval to fly the low level infrastructure inspection mission. That is ridiculous, firstly for me having to get a person in China to free up my drone and secondly, for a private manufacturer to be getting involved to that degree. Imagine if you had to ask your car manufacturer for permission if your vehicle GPS placed you in a certain area. DJI should only be involved up to the screen warning stage. Beyond that, it should be the pilot’s risk. And that is what they already show on the first method. But going further and becoming physically involved in flight usage is not their responsibility. A comparison would be me ringing Cessna before I take off doing my PPL. And my other comment related to risk. If somebody did use a drone for bad reasons after DJI unlocked it, DJI becomes part of the subsequent liabilities. It is a potentially huge issue for them, in becoming a flight approval agent. And it is inappropriate and should not be part of their business.

 

[Johnmcl7]

You have all your greedy lawyers in the USA to thank for all those dumb cover my @ss warnings. Unfortunately they made their way to the UK and Australia too. They’ve made a fortune out of what in reality is simple common sense.

I spilt my hot coffee while I was driving and ouch it was hot - it’s your fault it was hot so I’ll sue you. So now everyone’s coffee has to be made cooler.

And you can add to that the ridiculous ‘agreements’ you have to accept for most software these days. Thank you lawyers!

Your understanding of the 'hot coffee' case is almost completely wrong although it's perhaps the misunderstood court case out there probably due to the fact people want to believe the nonsense version of it and unfortunately that version of it was pushed by those wanting tort reform.

The lady didn't spill the coffee while driving since she was neither the driver nor was the car moving. McDonalds required the coffee to be served at a higher temperature and when checked at the time, it was found it was hotter than other coffees served in the area and as a result the lady suffered more serious burns than if the coffee had been served at a normal temperature. The lady admitted her mistake but she requested McDonalds cover her medical expenses which were largely due to the coffee being hotter than it should have done but McDonalds repeatedly refused and forced it into court. During the trial it was found not just that McDonalds were serving the coffee at too high a temperature but they knew the temperature could cause serious burns and had settled many other cases already:

 

[PhantomFandom]

Your understanding of the 'hot coffee' case is almost completely wrong although it's perhaps the misunderstood court case out there probably due to the fact people want to believe the nonsense version of it and unfortunately that version of it was pushed by those wanting tort reform.

I know the post from @SkyeHigh mentioned driving with the coffee, but I was only referring to the spilling and suing.

The spill was still the woman's fault. McDonald's did not throw the coffee in her lap. That is my point about personal accountability. That is why we also have medical insurance. If you spill coffee on yourself, or swallow a nail because you had it in your mouth, or fall off a ladder, it is your fault. Use your medical insurance instead of suing the manufacturer/vendor. If your injury was due to a faulty product then yes of course the vendor should be held accountable.

due to the coffee being hotter than it should have

Too hot? How exactly does one quantify what too hot is? I for one hate when I order a hot beverage and it is tepid. Coffee and tea need to be HOT. It tastes better and you actually need the higher temperatures to properly brew some coffees and steep some teas. So if I order a hot beverage and it is anywhere up to boiling (212 F or 100 C) then I am fine with that. In fact I prefer that.

 

[SkyeHigh]

Your understanding of the 'hot coffee' case is almost completely wrong although it's perhaps the misunderstood court case out there probably due to the fact people want to believe the nonsense version of it and unfortunately that version of it was pushed by those wanting tort reform.

The lady didn't spill the coffee while driving since she was neither the driver nor was the car moving. McDonalds required the coffee to be served at a higher temperature and when checked at the time, it was found it was hotter than other coffees served in the area and as a result the lady suffered more serious burns than if the coffee had been served at a normal temperature. The lady admitted her mistake but she requested McDonalds cover her medical expenses which were largely due to the coffee being hotter than it should have done but McDonalds repeatedly refused and forced it into court. During the trial it was found not just that McDonalds were serving the coffee at too high a temperature but they knew the temperature could cause serious burns and had settled many other cases already:

Then maybe we should get rid of knives and guns - the manufacturers know they could hurt someone. It’s all the same, a lawyer will do everything to win a case for the client no matter how dumb, careless or money grabbing the client is.

Common sense and personal responsibility are key. Sadly both are seriously lacking these days and the lawyers are more than happy to take advantage of it.

 

[iaincaradoc]

Then maybe we should get rid of knives and guns - the manufacturers know they could hurt someone.

In Edinburgh in 2006, I had to show photo ID to buy a sterling silver cake server - because it had a serrated edge. I thought that was rather odd.