No More GEO Fence lockout.

[Deleted member 137955]

Not at all.

Some in DC were actually using it as a reason to ban DJI. They were saying DJI could use GEO Fencing to shut down our drones. SO it was actually being used against them.

DJI was planning on doing this in the U.S. last year. Just like they did in the E.U. But they held off due to the issues in D.C. So they just decided to go ahead and remove this to make their customers happy. With the RID requirements and Counter UAS identification technology getting better, they also felt GEO Fence was no longer needed.

So since they knew DC would use GEO Fence against them either way, they decided to just make their customers happy and modify the system for their U.S. customers.

You're right, this decision may not lead to a ban, at least not directly
but if the number of drone incidents increases then it will be another reason that can be added to the list

looking at the big picture, the ban on some chinese auto tech, see here https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/us-engineers-decisive-split-global-auto-market-2025-01-15/ and the tiktok situation may say that sooner or later a dji drones ban will come

and I hope I don't get hated for saying this, but any kind of drone with a range longer than 50-100m may pose some security risks
commercial drones were used in combat zones with great success and imo there is nothing much that can be done to make them safer for use by anyone who buys them

 

[zone]

If .gov uses their removing geo fencing as an excuse to ban them, then you can bet they will turn it back on in an oh-no second.

That said I think it was an expense that that they were incurring and it opened them up to liability. If someone got hurt in a drone attack/accident in an area that had a TFR that someone didn't update into their fly-safe, who do you think the lawyers are going after.

IMHO

 

[DarR-T]

With ever-changing rules world-wide, DJI must have been working around the clock just to keep up.
Can't blame them for dropping a gatekeeping service that most pilots don't want and other companies don't provide.
I would rather see them focusing on RC and goggle compatibility across all new products.

 

[mavic3usa]

If US.gov can mandate RID in all new drones, they can mandate Geofencing in all new drones.

 

[Erk1024]

challenges due to DJI's zones not matching reality.

Agree. This is a thing.

 

[Droning on and on...]

It was a good idea, poorly implemented, IMO.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I wonder if the geofencing will be removed in Canada too eh? I'll check for an update this evening but unfortunately no flying in the near future due to weather.

Coming soon, according to DJI. Canada is next.

 

[meierjn]

Coming soon, according to DJI. Canada is next.

Yeah, I checked last night and there was no update available.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Yeah, I checked last night and there was no update available.

Soon means Canada is the next country on their To Do list, which will likely still be several months from now, as they have to replace their GEO with all of Canadian airspace restriction maps. Not now, but it’s coming. Patience grasshopper.

 

[DarR-T]

Coming soon, according to DJI. Canada is next.

I like it but could you post the source?
There's nothing yet posted about it by the Canadian Drone Pilots Association which are in regular contact with TC.
If fact, I have just inquired about it and so far, there is no evidence yet of changes in Canada according to the admin of the Drone Pilot Association of Canada Group. I'll report back on this with any developments as it could change quickly.
FYI: Most Geo-fencing zones in the UK and some EU countries have just been removed.
Source: DJI’S UPDATES TO ITS GEO SYSTEM

 

[meierjn]

Soon means Canada is the next country on their To Do list, which will likely still be several months from now, as they have to replace their GEO with all of Canadian airspace restriction maps. Not now, but it’s coming. Patience grasshopper.

I am in no rush Master Po.

 

[ogflier]

Flew today for the first time in about a month. Got to max altitude with my Mavic 3 Pro...then tried extending my max altitude. Agreed to the terms/conditions...and all I can say is that a 3200 ft ceiling...turns that drone into a completely different photo/video animal.

 

[sarahb]

Agreed to the terms/conditions

how can you "agree to the terms and conditions" and then fly illegally up to 3200' AGL?

 

[Droning on and on...]

Flew today for the first time in about a month. Got to max altitude with my Mavic 3 Pro...then tried extending my max altitude. Agreed to the terms/conditions...and all I can say is that a 3200 ft ceiling...turns that drone into a completely different photo/video animal.

You were grossly illegal, and presenting a real safety risk to manned aircraft. Surely you are aware that sUAS aircraft have a hard ceiling at 400ft AGL.

By, "agreed to the terms/conditions" I assume you're referring to the DJI Fly warning that appears when you opt to enable the extension above 500m, unique to the Mavic 3.

This is not for the purpose of exceeding 500m AGL. It's to facilitate exceeding 500m above takeoff while ascending the side of a mountain maintaining 400ft AGL throughout the flight.

 

[Photo Booth]

Flew today for the first time in about a month. Got to max altitude with my Mavic 3 Pro...then tried extending my max altitude. Agreed to the terms/conditions...and all I can say is that a 3200 ft ceiling...turns that drone into a completely different photo/video animal.

Peter Akemann flew his DJI Mini 3 Pro beyond visual line of sight too. I am sure he was either ignorant of the rules or didn't care (sound familiar?). But, in the end, that didn't matter. His BVLOS actions bit him in the butt. The Justice Department gave him the equivalent of a virtual colonoscopy. Just read this:

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/akemann-plea-agreement.pdf

But Peter Akemann did one thing right... He didn't log onto a drone forum to brag about his illegal actions.

Mark

 

[photoshop67]

An elusive class that actual experience seems to indicate doesn't exist anywhere but Universe Paranoid.

I saw a video, before geofencing of some fool flying alongside a passenger aircraft as it took off from an airport. The fool thought it was cool, something to show the world. I don’t think the sub 250’s are a huge danger, but the older heaver models in a passenger jet engine? Maybe as bad as a flock of birds, which it seems caused a recent crash.

 

[ogflier]

how can you "agree to the terms and conditions" and then fly illegally up to 3200' AGL?

You were grossly illegal, and presenting a real safety risk to manned aircraft. Surely you are aware that sUAS aircraft have a hard ceiling at 400ft AGL.

By, "agreed to the terms/conditions" I assume you're referring to the DJI Fly warning that appears when you opt to enable the extension above 500m, unique to the Mavic 3.

This is not for the purpose of exceeding 500m AGL. It's to facilitate exceeding 500m above takeoff while ascending the side of a mountain maintaining 400ft AGL throughout the flight.

Read the post again, and understand I didn't say I actually flew to 3200'. I was making an observation based on the fact that if the 400' ceiling gives you a pretty good view...then wow, allegedly, the view from 3200' would be fantastic. Sorry that wasn't made that clear in my post. I never go BVLOS.

 

[sarahb]

Read the post again, and understand I didn't say I actually flew to 3200'. I was making an observation based on the fact that if the 400' ceiling gives you a pretty good view...then wow, allegedly, the view from 3200' would be fantastic. Sorry that wasn't made that clear in my post. I never go BVLOS.

You MOST certainly did! ".and all I can say is that a 3200 ft ceiling...turns that drone into a completely different photo/video animal." Don't take me as a fool!

 

[Photo Booth]

Read the post again, and understand I didn't say I actually flew to 3200'. I was making an observation based on the fact that if the 400' ceiling gives you a pretty good view...then wow, allegedly, the view from 3200' would be fantastic. Sorry that wasn't made that clear in my post. I never go BVLOS.

A classic example of backpedaling.

Mark

 

[Droning on and on...]

Read the post again, and understand I didn't say I actually flew to 3200'. I was making an observation based on the fact that if the 400' ceiling gives you a pretty good view...then wow, allegedly, the view from 3200' would be fantastic. Sorry that wasn't made that clear in my post. I never go BVLOS.

You'll get A LOT less grief for a simple horizontal BVLOS admission than You'll ever get for an altitude violation.

And for good reason. Simple BVLOS violations have no track record of any safety problems. Altitude violations do.

While the collision in LA recently between a mini 3 pro and a fire-fighting tanker plane was not a result of an altitude violation, it serves well to illustrate what can happen in a collision even with a sub-250g drone. And the tanker wasn't going very fast. At altitude, a passenger plane can be going hundreds of miles an hour, resulting in much more energy to be dissipated by the aircraft during collision.