DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

RPAS Safety Assurance - DJI Products

TDWright

New Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3
Reactions
1
Age
52
Does anyone know why DJI products don't qualify to fly near/over people according the RPAS Safety Assurance page? Choosing the right drone - Transport Canada

If you are using DJI products commercially (which many, many people are) there are a lot of use cases to fly near or over people.

I'm not sure what the deciding factor is here. I thought it would have something to do with number of rotors but several of the other RPAS that are cleared are quadcopters as well as fixed wing.

So why is the most popular RPAS manufacturer only authorized to fly more than 30 metres from a person under the Advanced Certificate?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lionfish
Does anyone know why DJI products don't qualify to fly near/over people according the RPAS Safety Assurance page? Choosing the right drone - Transport Canada
Of the 108 drones listed in that table, only 15 qualify for use over people.
All DJI drones except the original Inspire qualify for use near people.

The 15 that do qualify for Over People use are all large, expensive drones with either fixed wing, parachute or redundancy measures for safety.
 
The stupid thing about this rule (flying over people) and this is classic Canadian bureaucratic claptrap, is you're allowed to fly 120m high but 5m away from people with an advanced certificate. Bust out your Pythagoras and you'll find that's 120.1m from someone below. If there's an incident or problem, your drone isn't going to drop out of the sky like a rock, it's going to drift with the wind or with the drone's momentum so what in the universe could it possibly matter if you're 120.1m or 120m from a person below?

To take it a step further, if you're flying 20m above someone but 5m away, you're 20.6m from that person. This is how stupid that rule is. There shouldn't have been a distinction between flying over someone or flying within 5m of someone unless they wanted to say if you're eye level or below or maybe 10 feet or below otherwise there's absolutely no difference.
 
I've found the ruling behind this if anyone's interested in attempting to modify their drone to meet this safety assurance standard. according to Standard 922 - RPAS Safety Assurance:

922.06 Operations over People​

Information Note: These technical requirements are applicable to RPAS declarations for operations referred to in paragraph 901.69(1)(c) of the CARs .

Information Note: Where any function of an RPAS is essential to, or can affect, continued safe flight and landing of the RPA , that function, and the equipment performing the function, including the RPA control station, the command and control links and any other system elements that may be required during flight operation, will be considered as part of the RPAS for the purposes of establishing RPA limitations.

Protections against Injury to Persons on the Ground​

  • (1) No single failure of the RPAS may result in a severe injury to a person on the ground within 5 m horizontal of the RPA in operation.
  • (2) The occurrence of any combination of failures of the RPAS which may result in a severe injury to a person on the ground within 5 m horizontal of the RPA in operation must be shown to be remote.

Warning and Alerts​

  • (3) Systems, controls, and associated monitoring and warning means must be designed to minimize RPAS pilot errors that could create additional hazards.
Quoted from Here <-- visit that link for the rest of the standard, which includes flying near people and in restricted airspace.
my interpretation of this is that drones with redundancy, like the Matrice series or other hexacopters, follow this standard, as well as drones with risk mitigation systems like parachutes.

REMEMBER TO ACTUALLY SUBMIT A SAFETY ASSURANCE DECLARATION FOR YOUR MODIFIED DRONE, just slapping a parachute on it is not enough to call it a day and fly over folks.
 
I've found the ruling behind this if anyone's interested in attempting to modify their drone to meet this safety assurance standard. according to Standard 922 - RPAS Safety Assurance:

Quoted from Here <-- visit that link for the rest of the standard, which includes flying near people and in restricted airspace.
my interpretation of this is that drones with redundancy, like the Matrice series or other hexacopters, follow this standard, as well as drones with risk mitigation systems like parachutes.

REMEMBER TO ACTUALLY SUBMIT A SAFETY ASSURANCE DECLARATION FOR YOUR MODIFIED DRONE, just slapping a parachute on it is not enough to call it a day and fly over folks.
So, I have no idea where to find a safe parachute for the Mavic air 2, Indemnis and ParaZero both seem to be fine with ignoring this drone for the time being :(
 
So, I have no idea where to find a safe parachute for the Mavic air 2, Indemnis and ParaZero both seem to be fine with ignoring this drone for the time being :(


There are a few posts on the subject. I wouldn't bother with it. The parachute systems that they will accept are thousands of dollars. And what's the point? If you're 100m in the air and 5m away from someone horizontally (or not), do you really think you or an observers can tell? You're 100.12m from them in that situation FYI. The only reason I can think of that would justify needing a drone with a safety assurance that allows it to fly directly over people is if you plan on flying over crowds at events. And then you're into a SFOC. If it's that important, get a Mini.
 
There are a few posts on the subject. I wouldn't bother with it. The parachute systems that they will accept are thousands of dollars. And what's the point? If you're 100m in the air and 5m away from someone horizontally (or not), do you really think you or an observers can tell? You're 100.12m from them in that situation FYI. The only reason I can think of that would justify needing a drone with a safety assurance that allows it to fly directly over people is if you plan on flying over crowds at events. And then you're into a SFOC. If it's that important, get a Mini.
Can a mini be legally used for shooting footage of advertised events? I guess they're not really included in the CARs, but it just doesn't seem like a safe practice to me. I'd like to professionally shoot videos of public events, and that's the only reason I'm interested in a risk mitigation system like this (I've already resigned myself to having to deal with SFOC's). I just want to legally CMA (cover my a**). As long as it's cheaper than a drone with a redundancy system already in place (the matrice is roughly 6K), while I can't afford it right now, the expansion of my operating environment would be a fantastic investment for me in the future.

When I do modify the drone, I fully intend to have pontoons as well, that way if I fly over water, I can fly calmly knowing that if something happens, the drone will fall slowly via the parachute and land on the water so it's recoverable for the DJI care refresh.
 
Can a mini be legally used for shooting footage of advertised events? I guess they're not really included in the CARs, but it just doesn't seem like a safe practice to me. I'd like to professionally shoot videos of public events, and that's the only reason I'm interested in a risk mitigation system like this (I've already resigned myself to having to deal with SFOC's). I just want to legally CMA (cover my a**). As long as it's cheaper than a drone with a redundancy system already in place (the matrice is roughly 6K), while I can't afford it right now, the expansion of my operating environment would be a fantastic investment for me in the future.

When I do modify the drone, I fully intend to have pontoons as well, that way if I fly over water, I can fly calmly knowing that if something happens, the drone will fall slowly via the parachute and land on the water so it's recoverable for the DJI care refresh.
The only Part IX regulation in the CAR that applies to microdrones (sub-250 gram) is 900.06 "No person shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system in such a reckless or negligent manner as to endanger or be likely to endanger aviation safety or the safety of any person."
The stupid thing about this rule (flying over people) and this is classic Canadian bureaucratic claptrap, is you're allowed to fly 120m high but 5m away from people with an advanced certificate. Bust out your Pythagoras and you'll find that's 120.1m from someone below. If there's an incident or problem, your drone isn't going to drop out of the sky like a rock, it's going to drift with the wind or with the drone's momentum so what in the universe could it possibly matter if you're 120.1m or 120m from a person below?

To take it a step further, if you're flying 20m above someone but 5m away, you're 20.6m from that person. This is how stupid that rule is. There shouldn't have been a distinction between flying over someone or flying within 5m of someone unless they wanted to say if you're eye level or below or maybe 10 feet or below otherwise there's absolutely no difference.
The flying over people part seems to come from more international safety requirements. Like almost all rules, it is arbitrary. The risk to someone outside the 5m radius is probably less than for people within the 5m radius. Imagine the 'fun' trying to manage your radius if you were flying a fixed wing RPAS.

Too many people were doing too many stupid things. That got the attention of the government. What do governments do? They pass laws and regulations. Any time something comes to the government's attention, you're going to wind up with more laws and regs.

My take is that our Canadian regulations strike a reasonable balance. They require us to take an inexpensive, open-book test and if we want to be allowed to fly within controlled airspace or near people we need to write a more difficult inexpensive open-book exam, and demonstrate our knowledge to a flight reviewer, and show them that we can fly for 5 or 10 minutes without doing anything stupid.

At least we're not anywhere near as restricted as they are in the US.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pawnie
The only Part IX regulation in the CAR that applies to microdrones (sub-250 gram) is 900.06 "No person shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system in such a reckless or negligent manner as to endanger or be likely to endanger aviation safety or the safety of any person."

The flying over people part seems to come from more international safety requirements. Like almost all rules, it is arbitrary. The risk to someone outside the 5m radius is probably less than for people within the 5m radius. Imagine the 'fun' trying to manage your radius if you were flying a fixed wing RPAS.

Too many people were doing too many stupid things. That got the attention of the government. What do governments do? They pass laws and regulations. Any time something comes to the government's attention, your going to wind up with more laws and regs.

My take is that our Canadian regulations strike a reasonable balance. They require us to take an inexpensive, open-book test and if we want to be allowed to fly within controlled airspace or near people we need to write a more difficult inexpensive open-book exam, and demonstrate our knowledge to a flight reviewer, and show them that we can fly for 5 or 10 minutes without doing anything stupid.

At least we're not anywhere near as restricted as they are in the US.

I agree with everything here except the inexpensive part. I estimate I put about 200 hours into getting my advanced certification all-in. My time ain't free and that was a ludicrous amount of effort. The basic cert was pretty easy and "almost free". sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kevbac
Can a mini be legally used for shooting footage of advertised events? I guess they're not really included in the CARs, but it just doesn't seem like a safe practice to me. I'd like to professionally shoot videos of public events, and that's the only reason I'm interested in a risk mitigation system like this (I've already resigned myself to having to deal with SFOC's). I just want to legally CMA (cover my a**). As long as it's cheaper than a drone with a redundancy system already in place (the matrice is roughly 6K), while I can't afford it right now, the expansion of my operating environment would be a fantastic investment for me in the future.

When I do modify the drone, I fully intend to have pontoons as well, that way if I fly over water, I can fly calmly knowing that if something happens, the drone will fall slowly via the parachute and land on the water so it's recoverable for the DJI care refresh.

You'll find different opinions on these and other forums but my opinion is it is pretty definitive sub-250g drones are exempt from the CAR's except for the part the other poster already provided. Just don't be stupid basically. And that would allow you to fly over crowds if you know what you're doing and do it safely.

Regarding "pontoons" look around here and you'll find info about water jackets that not only allow drones to survive a water landing but also seal them from rain, etc. Not sure if they're available for all drones, I only saw it for my Air 2. Note that anything like this would put a drone like the Mini/Mini2 over the 250g limit which triggers all of the rules other drones are subject to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kevbac
I agree with everything here except the inexpensive part. I estimate I put about 200 hours into getting my advanced certification all-in. My time ain't free and that was a ludicrous amount of effort. The basic cert was pretty easy and "almost free". sure.
I agree with everything except the "my time ain't free" part. How much were you going to be earning during that 200 hours if you weren't prepping for the advanced certification? Did you give up earnings? If not, then your time is free. Are you planning to use your Advanced certificate to help you earn money? If so and you are expecting a positive return on investment, then the time you put into it will be worth more and more as you earn income as a result - that makes the time even cheaper than free. If, on the other hand, you are purely a hobby flier, then your time, by definition, if free..

I invested about 3 or 4 hours prepping to write the advanced exam. I was planning to write the advanced test a couple of times for practice, but then I went and passed it on the first attempt. I made sure to do it while it wouldn't cut into my income. I plan to invest a couple of days prepping for my flight review - I need to practice better habits in logging my flights.
 
Can a mini be legally used for shooting footage of advertised events? I guess they're not really included in the CARs, but it just doesn't seem like a safe practice to me. I'd like to professionally shoot videos of public events, and that's the only reason I'm interested in a risk mitigation system like this (I've already resigned myself to having to deal with SFOC's). I just want to legally CMA (cover my a**). As long as it's cheaper than a drone with a redundancy system already in place (the matrice is roughly 6K), while I can't afford it right now, the expansion of my operating environment would be a fantastic investment for me in the future.

When I do modify the drone, I fully intend to have pontoons as well, that way if I fly over water, I can fly calmly knowing that if something happens, the drone will fall slowly via the parachute and land on the water so it's recoverable for the DJI care refresh.

A word to the wise: It is entirely possible that a law enforcement officer, seeing a drone - even a sub-250 - flying over a crowd at an advertised event, could interpret it as flying "in such a reckless or negligent manner as to endanger or be likely to endanger ... the safety" of people attending the event.

At the very least, you would have to absorb the cost of going to court. Then, if the court agrees with the LEO, that you were violating 900.06, you could wind up with a hefty fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gerald McFall
I agree with everything except the "my time ain't free" part. How much were you going to be earning during that 200 hours if you weren't prepping for the advanced certification? Did you give up earnings? If not, then your time is free. Are you planning to use your Advanced certificate to help you earn money? If so and you are expecting a positive return on investment, then the time you put into it will be worth more and more as you earn income as a result - that makes the time even cheaper than free. If, on the other hand, you are purely a hobby flier, then your time, by definition, if free..

I invested about 3 or 4 hours prepping to write the advanced exam. I was planning to write the advanced test a couple of times for practice, but then I went and passed it on the first attempt. I made sure to do it while it wouldn't cut into my income. I plan to invest a couple of days prepping for my flight review - I need to practice better habits in logging my flights.

I make a lot of money tbh and this set me back big time and yes, I likely lost some work because of it. My clients go elsewhere if they can't get quick service from me. In any case, no matter how you look at it, I could have put those hours into extra work and made more money and if you're not making money, you're losing money (investing 101). To answer your other question, I do have business use for the license or I wouldn't have bothered.

Finally, I find it extremely hard to believe you only prepped 4-5 hours for the advanced exam unless you put a lot more time than needed into prepping for the basic exam. I'm not calling you a liar, you may be a genius or something, just saying that doesn't match any of the other stories I've seen. FYI: I spent more time on the flight review than the exam and it wasn't the flying part, it's the flight prep and emergency procedures I was really grilled on.
 
I make a lot of money tbh and this set me back big time and yes, I likely lost some work because of it. My clients go elsewhere if they can't get quick service from me. In any case, no matter how you look at it, I could have put those hours into extra work and made more money and if you're not making money, you're losing money (investing 101). To answer your other question, I do have business use for the license or I wouldn't have bothered.

Finally, I find it extremely hard to believe you only prepped 4-5 hours for the advanced exam unless you put a lot more time than needed into prepping for the basic exam. I'm not calling you a liar, you may be a genius or something, just saying that doesn't match any of the other stories I've seen. FYI: I spent more time on the flight review than the exam and it wasn't the flying part, it's the flight prep and emergency procedures I was really grilled on.
Here investing 101: Spend time and money in a way that will provide a positive return on investment. If the time you spent prepping actually results in increased income, then it gives you a net profit. That means you will be paid for that time. If your time spent prepping won't directly lead to increased income, or if that income won't be more than your estimate of the value of your time, it was a poor investment.

So, your prep time was either a valuable investment, or it wasn't.

Here's a rough breakdown of my prep for the Basic:
Watch a video (about 30 min), read the knowledge requirements on the TC site (10 min), open a pdf of the CARs and read Part IX, paying attention to things listed in the knowledge requirements (about an hour - I went through it twice), load a pdf of the AIM and search for key words and phrases from the knowledge requirements (half an hour), Google and Bing search for knowledge topics not covered in the AIM or CARs (it felt like 10 minutes because it was interesting, but was probably an hour). Add a preexisting understanding of basic physics and mechanical things (no extra time on that). Plus 20 minutes to write the exam, it all adds up to around four hours. Granted, I did get a question wrong on the Basic - got the same one (plus a few others) wrong on the Advanced. I answered with what I felt was more sensible, rather than what the CARs requires - my bad.
For the Advanced, I watched 3 videos, then repeated the rest of the steps, but looked at the knowledge requirements for advanced in addition to Basic. My plan was to write the Advanced a couple of times to get a feel for the questions. That plan didn't work out. I was speeding through, just selecting what I felt was the most obvious answer to each question - part of my strategy; I wanted to identify the areas that needed more study. I wound up passing. I wasn't happy with my score, but I'm not going to write it again. So, including writing both exams, you're right, I did spend more than 4-5 hours. The total was closer to six.
Finally, I find it very hard to believe that anyone would need 200 hours to prepare for such easy tests. I'm not calling you a list, it may be that you have difficulty learning things, it just doesn't match the information I've seen or the people (only a few) who I've coached.
FYI, I've also read the flight review requirements. Looks like a couple more hours of prep...
 
Here investing 101: Spend time and money in a way that will provide a positive return on investment. If the time you spent prepping actually results in increased income, then it gives you a net profit. That means you will be paid for that time. If your time spent prepping won't directly lead to increased income, or if that income won't be more than your estimate of the value of your time, it was a poor investment.

So, your prep time was either a valuable investment, or it wasn't.

Here's a rough breakdown of my prep for the Basic:
Watch a video (about 30 min), read the knowledge requirements on the TC site (10 min), open a pdf of the CARs and read Part IX, paying attention to things listed in the knowledge requirements (about an hour - I went through it twice), load a pdf of the AIM and search for key words and phrases from the knowledge requirements (half an hour), Google and Bing search for knowledge topics not covered in the AIM or CARs (it felt like 10 minutes because it was interesting, but was probably an hour). Add a preexisting understanding of basic physics and mechanical things (no extra time on that). Plus 20 minutes to write the exam, it all adds up to around four hours. Granted, I did get a question wrong on the Basic - got the same one (plus a few others) wrong on the Advanced. I answered with what I felt was more sensible, rather than what the CARs requires - my bad.
For the Advanced, I watched 3 videos, then repeated the rest of the steps, but looked at the knowledge requirements for advanced in addition to Basic. My plan was to write the Advanced a couple of times to get a feel for the questions. That plan didn't work out. I was speeding through, just selecting what I felt was the most obvious answer to each question - part of my strategy; I wanted to identify the areas that needed more study. I wound up passing. I wasn't happy with my score, but I'm not going to write it again. So, including writing both exams, you're right, I did spend more than 4-5 hours. The total was closer to six.
Finally, I find it very hard to believe that anyone would need 200 hours to prepare for such easy tests. I'm not calling you a list, it may be that you have difficulty learning things, it just doesn't match the information I've seen or the people (only a few) who I've coached.
FYI, I've also read the flight review requirements. Looks like a couple more hours of prep...

"...it may be that you have difficulty learning things..."

My friend, I have an engineering degree in applied science from Waterloo. You ain't getting through courses in 3D calculus, differential equations, thermodynamics, etc., etc., at Canada's toughest STEM school with a learning disability. Trust me: It ain't me.

FYI: the flight review, depending on the reviewer, is tougher. I hope you do well.
 
"...it may be that you have difficulty learning things..."

My friend, I have an engineering degree in applied science from Waterloo. You ain't getting through courses in 3D calculus, differential equations, thermodynamics, etc., etc., at Canada's toughest STEM school with a learning disability. Trust me: It ain't me.

FYI: the flight review, depending on the reviewer, is tougher. I hope you do well.
Actually, it would be an applied science degree in engineering. Which type? Mech, chem, civil? I have a couple of friends who taught the in the 80s. One of them po
Now that we're done using insults...
There's an old joke :
A student from a prestigious university is at the supermarket. Their cart is really full because they've been given the job of getting all the stuff for the end of semester party.
They go to the checkout that has almost no one at it - the 8 items or fewer line.
When they get to the cash, the cashier says, "You must be on your faculty's social committee."
The student says, "Wow, how'd you know that?"
Cashier replies, "From the assortment of snack foods and disposable played and utensils, I figure you're sticking up for the end of semester blowout. There's one thing I can't figure out, though."
Student : "What's that?"
Cashier,: "I can't figure out if you can't count because you're an Arts student or an engineer because you can't read."
 
  • Like
Reactions: pawnie
Actually, it would be an applied science degree in engineering. Which type? Mech, chem, civil? I have a couple of friends who taught the in the 80s. One of them po
Now that we're done using insults...
There's an old joke :
A student from a prestigious university is at the supermarket. Their cart is really full because they've been given the job of getting all the stuff for the end of semester party.
They go to the checkout that has almost no one at it - the 8 items or fewer line.
When they get to the cash, the cashier says, "You must be on your faculty's social committee."
The student says, "Wow, how'd you know that?"
Cashier replies, "From the assortment of snack foods and disposable played and utensils, I figure you're sticking up for the end of semester blowout. There's one thing I can't figure out, though."
Student : "What's that?"
Cashier,: "I can't figure out if you can't count because you're an Arts student or an engineer because you can't read."

Civil (specialized in structural). Never insulted. I was being genuine that maybe you're extremely intelligent.

Heard all the eng jokes over the years. Unfortunately, they're all accurate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kevbac
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
130,594
Messages
1,554,211
Members
159,600
Latest member
Deltabird