Which makes me wonder about my M5P
I've just been thinking along the same lines. My assumption would be that the FCC will
not be giving any future DJI (or Autel, etc.) drones approval, and that would mean they are not only legally prohibited from being sold in the US but I believe also from *operation* within the US due to their use of the radio spectrum (unless anyone can correct me on this?)
There are a few obvious implications of that, if correct:
1. Tourists with a non-approved model will not be able to legally operate them in the US, and most of them probably won't even realise it's an issue but, as the saying goes, "ignorance of the law is no defence", so $deity help them if they get busted for doing anything stupid and that comes to light as well. Those with a clue might well consider alternative destinations for their vacations where that won't be an issue.
2. Hollywood studios, who now use drones extensively (care to guess whose?), will also be prohibited from using them in the US, which probably means they are much more likely to move filming overseas where they can still use them, unless/until there is a US manufacturer that can offer a similarly capable platform. That means a significant chunk of the production budget will be spent overseas too.
3. All those US-based agencies/companies that currently use non-US drones - especially the specialist ones - are going to need to replace them with *very* expensive US-made equivalents as they age out, assuming those equivalents even exist. Even if there is room in the budget to make the purchases, the cost will - as always - be passed downstream to the taxpayer or customer, and that's not just financial. If the misson is search & rescue and it fails because the gear isn't good enough, then the cost would literally be someone's life.
4. This is all going to get horribly messy, both in the courts and on the balance sheets of (mostly US-based) agencies and companies that are going to be affected by the ban.
Is all that really worth scratching a totally unsubstantiated claim of "national security" itch and allowing a certain US drone company with a noteworthy board member to hopefully make bank for? I highly suspect the bottom line is going to be a resounding "no" - unless you *are* that board member, of course.
