Time for goodbye to DJI?

[PhantomFandom]

So you are saying that you think a Chinese company that gives information to the Chinese government any time on their request should be an USS with access to the LAANC authorization system for US airspace?

Sorry but that is not a good thing at all IMO. Vetting US based companies for government work is bad enough. There is no way I want DJI having their fingers in the LAANC cookie jar!

First, there is no proof whatsoever that DJI gives any information to the Chinese government at any time.

Second, DJI has already been approved as an authorized LAANC provider. So no matter whether I like it or you like it, DJI already can access the LAANC system.

Third, access to the LAANC system gives them no super powers or access to classified information. It just allows them to put in a request to LAANC on behalf of the pilot.

So yes I do want DJI to have access. That way the LAANC request process can be built into DJI Go 4 and hopefully that authorization can then automatically unlock the zone. It will streamline the process and make it easier for everyone to fly legally where they have authorization to do so.

 

[AntDX316]

We will just have to see what the new DJI drone will be. They will have to release one once Skydio proves to be better. I mean, they are China.

 

[AnzacJack]

And what brand and model would that be ????

It would depend greatly on what exactly was needed for the contract, and what would be required for future contracts, but it would seem that for 15grand, the client probably wants more than some pretty pics.
Without knowledge of the contract, and the business model this guy has, I’m not prepared to recommend a particular platform. The OP stated that he wasn’t impressed with the specs but didn’t want to spend more.
Not sure whether you are really interested or just trying to catch me out, so I’ll leave it at that. If you are really interested, happy to discuss further, but I personally would be using a RTF off the shelf

 

[sar104]

No logical distinction. The minute I get authorization from the FAA to fly I should be able to fly. It doesn't matter if I have to wait 10 days, 10 hours or 10 seconds for DJI to provide the unlock if I have to wait for them to do something for me to fly I am fundamentally waiting for their permission to fly.

You entitled to your opinion, and you are free to use a different manufacturer for your sUAS needs. If you don't like the DJI geo system then don't use DJI gear. But this perpetual whining isn't going to change anything.

 

[sar104]

Really? Because I can "simply" go through the unlock process and fly in areas where it is still illegal to fly. Heck - I can knowingly fly in areas that DJI doesn't even flag as no fly zones. Remember, we aren't all under the jurisdiction of the FAA, even if we do answer to DJI.

You fly, or don't fly, at DJI's discretion. As unlikely as it sounds they could decide the whole of the North American continent is a NFZ tomorrow and you would be forced to hack your own property in order to fly.

Three straw man arguments in one short reply. Well played. I'm going to leave you to rant in peace.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

You entitled to your opinion, and you are free to use a different manufacturer for your sUAS needs. If you don't like the DJI geo system then don't use DJI gear. But this perpetual whining isn't going to change anything.

It's not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact and your "use a different manufacturer" is a deflection from the issue at hand. If you have to get unlock by DJI in order to fly in a certain location AFTER you've received the FAA's blessing to fly then DJI is granting you permission to fly in that airspace, period, end of story.

 

[Thomas B]

as I have noted before, my M2P flown with CrystalSky has never had a question or denial of flight from DJI software. It is of note that I never request it from them and get approval through AirMap (LAANC) or directly from FAA. The latter has given me a 2 year approval for my practice area which does encroach into the edges of 2 airport NFZs. Just saying... not sure why, but I’m very glad. BTW, all my batteries, my M2P, the CS, and controller are all on the most current software.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

It sounds very unlikely. DJI are in the business of selling drones. You might find their would be no restrictions from DJI’s side absent the need for them to work with regulators and engineer their product to provide comfort that operation in restricted areas without approval is precluded in some circumstances. It is also obvious that self unlocks demonstrate the operator is aware of the potential risks/consequences and has made a conscious decision to proceed with the flight.

Provide an instance where a self unlock is required or flight is not possible that doesn’t align with the circumstances and you have a legitimate gripe. I have been in that position and was pleased to learn that DJI made the appropriate modification the the NFZ database once it was brought to their attention.

Yes, unlike but the concept of a foreign entity governing U.S. airspace is bothersome to me. And the argument that granting permission under any other name is not granting permission and governing is ludicrous. If DJI is doing this over a concern they will be held libel if something bad happens then I have to ask how far don't the liability road they want to go? Should car manufacturers limit the speed of a car because the GPS in the vehicle says the vehicle is on a road with a 30 mph speed limit. Is the assumption that if the vehicle is in motion it is being controlled by someone with a driver's license?

IMHO DJI should have the purchaser sign a release form releasing them from all liability with respect to flight into controlled airspace. It could be part of the registration process. You purchase the drone you're responsible for how it is flown. I already have the FAA holding my hand, I don't need hand holding by anyone else.

 

[sar104]

It's not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact and your "use a different manufacturer" is a deflection from the issue at hand. If you have to get unlock by DJI in order to fly in a certain location AFTER you've received the FAA's blessing to fly then DJI is granting you permission to fly in that airspace, period, end of story.

Sorry - now you are just making stuff up - you don't just get to assert that your opinions are facts. The existence of an unlock procedure is not the same as "getting permission". You can continue to troll on this as much as you like but I'm not interested in repeatedly rebutting the same assertions.

 

[WithTheBirds]

Yes, unlike but the concept of a foreign entity governing U.S. airspace is bothersome to me. And the argument that granting permission under any other name is not granting permission and governing is ludicrous. If DJI is doing this over a concern they will be held libel if something bad happens then I have to ask how far don't the liability road they want to go? Should car manufacturers limit the speed of a car because the GPS in the vehicle says the vehicle is on a road with a 30 mph speed limit. Is the assumption that if the vehicle is in motion it is being controlled by someone with a driver's license?

IMHO DJI should have the purchaser sign a release form releasing them from all liability with respect to flight into controlled airspace. It could be part of the registration process. You purchase the drone you're responsible for how it is flown. I already have the FAA holding my hand, I don't need hand holding by anyone else.

You have either misunderstood or chosen to ignore my point.

Whether you are lawfully able to fly in a particular area, including possessing any required approvals and or meeting licensing requirements is not determined by DJI. It is ignorant for us to argue that DJI's GEO fencing and unlock procedure represent anything other than DJI's efforts to ensure the appropriate authorities regulations are adhered to and, with specific relevance to self unlocking, to demonstrate the user has acknowledged they understand the potential risks and hazards at a certain location. This seems to have little to do with DJI attempting to absolve themselves of liability and to the extent it might it appears, with high likelihood, to be more about demonstrating to the relevant authorities that DJI products are, by virtue of GEO and the unlock system, unlikely to be operated in manner so as to cause any conflicts in the airspace.

If you are paying attention to recent developments and struggling with GEO fencing what comes next will really upset you. Expect a mandated system that will report sUAV movements and a means for owner identification in the near future.

 

[AntDX316]

With the right connections and the right equipment, $15k is no big deal as they have hundreds of millions to billions to work with gathering money from many areas with ease.

Some people would laugh at spending $200 for 1 hour of filming. Some spend $350+ and higher easy. It depends on who you are talking to and what you have to offer.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

You have either misunderstood or chosen to ignore my point.

Whether you are lawfully able to fly in a particular area, including possessing any required approvals and or meeting licensing requirements is not determined by DJI. It is ignorant for us to argue that DJI's GEO fencing and unlock procedure represent anything other than DJI's efforts to ensure the appropriate authorities regulations are adhered to and, with specific relevance to self unlocking, to demonstrate the user has acknowledged they understand the potential risks and hazards at a certain location. This seems to have little to do with DJI attempting to absolve themselves of liability and to the extent it might it appears, with high likelihood, to be more about demonstrating to the relevant authorities that DJI products are, by virtue of GEO and the unlock system, unlikely to be operated in manner so as to cause any conflicts in the airspace.

If you are paying attention to recent developments and struggling with GEO fencing what comes next will really upset you. Expect a mandated system that will report sUAV movements and a means for owner identification in the near future.

No, I understand your point very clearly and my point is regardless of what motivations you claim DJI has for the geo fencing the bottom line is they control where an individual can fly a DJI drone. The job of regulating and policing the national airspace belongs to the FAA, not DJI. As far as I know the FAA isn't requiring drone manufacturers to include geo fencing software in their drones. DJI has claimed the authority to tell users where and when they can fly and even with FAA permission you're not allowed to fly until DJI says so. Until the FAA mandates drone manufacturers to include that software that the geo fencing is DJI's usurpation of the FAA's authority to control the usage of airspace.

Your comment "Whether you are lawfully able to fly...is not determined by DJI" is clearly shown to be wrong given the experience of individuals that have received FAA approval to make a flight and that flight is delayed until DJI takes some action. Again, if you have FAA authorization to fly in an area and your flight is delay for 10 seconds until DJI does an unlock it is DJI giving you permission to fly regardless of what terminology you want to use in describing the unlocking process.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Sorry - now you are just making stuff up - you don't just get to assert that your opinions are facts. The existence of an unlock procedure is not the same as "getting permission". You can continue to troll on this as much as you like but I'm not interested in repeatedly rebutting the same assertions.

Please tell me what "facts" I'm making up. The fact is that in some circumstances if DJI doesn't unlock the drone you can't fly. That is the only fact I need to understand to recognize that in some circumstance you cannot fly without DJI's permission, permission that is granted via unlocking your drone to fly in a certain area.

You don't get a pass by using the "troll" card. Be specific. What sentence above isn't factual?

 

[Donnie Frank]

First, there is no proof whatsoever that DJI gives any information to the Chinese government at any time.

Tell that to the U.S. Military.

Second, DJI has already been approved as an authorized LAANC provider. So no matter whether I like it or you like it, DJI already can access the LAANC system.

True.

Third, access to the LAANC system gives them no super powers or access to classified information. It just allows them to put in a request to LAANC on behalf of the pilot.

Interesting.

So yes I do want DJI to have access. That way the LAANC request process can be built into DJI Go 4 and hopefully that authorization can then automatically unlock the zone.

So....to be clear....you want DJI to legislate YOUR flights? Or the flights of OTHER pilots?

If DJI is going to legislate our flights, no need for the 107, eh? Safety has been wrapped around us like a diaper, agreed?

While I firmly believe the 107 is flawed, there ARE parts of it that make sense - like understanding the NAS, flight lines, glide slopes, runway numbers, etc. So if I'm going to be forced to pass a test to fly professionally, it seems redundant to have DJI wiping my ***. I personally own my own safety. I always have. When you allow others to own your own safety, your dependence on them makes you lazy and complacent. So....while I concede that it's good to limit these birds out of the box, once a pilot gets his 107, those limitations should be lifted. Why? Because CLEARLY DJI lacks the geographical savvy to legislate their birds in a way that doesn't screw flight professionals on the job site.

It will streamline the process and make it easier for everyone to fly legally where they have authorization to do so.

What about about stopping us where we have permission to fly? I've been bitten by that twice, so now my birds are hacked and I'll never have to worry about that again.

If I'm reading you right, we should abolish the 107 and let DJI manage us? Is that your proposal?

Multiple choice question: Who manages YOUR safety better? You? Or DJI? Because I can tell you from personal experience that DJI SUCKS at managing MY safety. Turns out, I'm much better at it than they are. YMMV.

D

 

[Donnie Frank]

Please tell me what "facts" I'm making up. The fact is that in some circumstances if DJI doesn't unlock the drone you can't fly.

Bingo. This has happened to me TWICE. It was absolutely maddening both times. Nothing makes you look more foolish in front of a client than not understanding why your bird won't fly, or having to drive back to the McDonald's WiFi 40 miles away so you can agree to some BS test or EULA.

That is the only fact I need to understand to recognize that in some circumstance you cannot fly without DJI's permission, permission that is granted via unlocking your drone to fly in a certain area.

Yep. Facts are facts. And THAT is a fact.

You don't get a pass by using the "troll" card. Be specific. What sentence above isn't factual?

I see no trolling here. Whomever called you a troll doesn't know what that word means.

D

 

[Donnie Frank]

Interesting thread. There seems to be two schools of thought here. The first school of thought seems to be among flight professionals who fully understand the NAS and the rules for safe flying:

"I own my own safety and follow the rules, so I shouldn't be legislated by a company that clearly can't dot their I's and cross their T's."

The second school of thought seems to be from guys who are more comfortable with allowing DJI do their thinking for them. Dare I say, I don't believe these are flight professionals.

"I like that DJI legislates my flights. I can't wait for them to step it up a notch."

Interesting juxtaposition.

D

 

[PhantomFandom]

Tell that to the U.S. Military.

So just because the US military says something, you believe it? How did that work out for the absolute assurances that there were WMD in Iraq before that war?

So....to be clear....you want DJI to legislate YOUR flights? Or the flights of OTHER pilots?

If DJI is going to legislate our flights, no need for the 107, eh? Safety has been wrapped around us like a diaper, agreed?

Um no, I never said that. DJI isn't legislating anything. The FAA legislates. DJI only takes the restrictions of controlled airspace and implements them in their software.

So....while I concede that it's good to limit these birds out of the box, once a pilot gets his 107, those limitations should be lifted. Why? Because CLEARLY DJI lacks the geographical savvy to legislate their birds in a way that doesn't screw flight professionals on the job site.

So just because you can pass a fairly simple written exam, that makes you totally safe? I would agree that if you hold a manned aircraft pilot's license then everything should be unlocked for you.
In your opinion they lack the "geographical savvy" but in the vast majority of cases the system works just fine. I have never run into an issue with flying where I needed to and was allowed to by FAA regulations. Perhaps it is those who complain that lack the "geographical savvy", technical knowledge, and simple planning skills. This thread started not because there was something wrong with the DJI unlock process but because the OP did not plan in advance, did not double check everything before heading out, and a simple typo.

What about about stopping us where we have permission to fly? I've been bitten by that twice, so now my birds are hacked and I'll never have to worry about that again.

That was exactly my point. If LAANC is built into DJI Go 4 and integrated with the unlock process then you will only ever be stopped in locations where you are not allowed to fly, by FAA regulations.

If I'm reading you right, we should abolish the 107 and let DJI manage us? Is that your proposal?

I don't know where you got that from because I certainly never said that.

Multiple choice question: Who manages YOUR safety better? You? Or DJI? Because I can tell you from personal experience that DJI SUCKS at managing MY safety. Turns out, I'm much better at it than they are. YMMV.

As with any aircraft, the ultimate responsibility always resides with the PIC. DJI isn't managing anything. Their systems try to help in making sure that you are aware of safety concerns and regulations. Again, with a simple process and a little planning, there are no issues flying where you are allowed to fly.

 

[PhantomFandom]

"I own my own safety and follow the rules, so I shouldn't be legislated by a company that clearly can't dot their I's and cross their T's."

What's interesting is your use of wording to make it seem that your way is the right way.

DJI does not legislate anything. Please look up the meaning of the word.

The second school of thought seems to be from guys who are more comfortable with allowing DJI do their thinking for them. Dare I say, I don't believe these are flight professionals.

Again stuffing words in the mouth of people you don't agree with. DJI does not do my thinking for me. Their NFZ unlock procedure has NEVER caused me a problem or locked me out of flying anywhere I needed to fly.

Oh so now we are not flight professionals? Do you always make assumptions and wild accusations like that? I for one have never crashed a drone. I use them for both pleasure and business and have never "looked bad" in front of a client because I was ill prepared or my drone would not power up. I also hold a manned pilot's license and have never had an incident in a fixed wing aircraft. Is that professional enough for you?

Plan ahead, test your gear, get all your clearances, and test BEFORE you get on site. Simple as that.

 

[Donnie Frank]

So just because the US military says something, you believe it?

Boy...you are the grand conflaterer™, aren't you. When the U.S. military invests money in equipment and training, and then grounds that equipment because their IT people have found gaping security leaks in said equipment, yes, I believe the military.

How did that work out for the absolute assurances that there were WMD in Iraq before that war?

The grand conflaterer™ strikes again.

Um no, I never said that. DJI isn't legislating anything. The FAA legislates. DJI only takes the restrictions of controlled airspace and implements them in their software.

Semantics. At the end of the day, DJI is stopping you from flying. Whether or not they're "following orders" is irrelevant.

So just because you can pass a fairly simple written exam, that makes you totally safe?

Not at all. Ask anyone in this forum how often I bash the ridiculousness of the 107. BUT...if you're going to HAVE a 107, then, yes, put responsibility ON THE PILOT. NOT THE DRONE.

I would agree that if you hold a manned aircraft pilot's license then everything should be unlocked for you.

Yes...because Jumbo Jet pilots naturally make good UAV pilots, and vice versa....LOL....

I have a crazy idea. How about we completely separate the two skills as if one has nothing to do with the other. Crazy, right?

In your opinion they lack the "geographical savvy" but in the vast majority of cases the system works just fine.

Exactly. You nailed it. "Vast majority of cases." When you're out on set @ $5K/hour production cost (for a CHEAP film), and your drone won't start, that "1 in a thousand" becomes REALLY, REALLY important.

Let me put this into perspective for you. All you have to do is lose ONE JOB or look like an idiot in front of ONE CLIENT, and you will understand where the rest of us are coming from. We're not talking about the inconvenience of a screwed up weekend phun fly. We're talking about our jobs here. And that makes "majority of cases" not NEARLY good enough.

I have never run into an issue with flying where I needed to and was allowed to by FAA regulations.

Good for you. Flying every third weekend down at the local park will net that experience. Go out on location...like WAAAAY out on location. Like "out of cell phone range" location. And see how comfortable you are with a bird that flies in the "majority of cases."

Perhaps it is those who complain that lack the "geographical savvy", technical knowledge, and simple planning skills.

A couple points:

1) No manner of planning can stop DJI from screwing up your shoot. I had booted up, test flown and connected to the Internet the night before a shoot. Within TWELVE HOURS my bird was LOCKED pending some ( Mod Removed )test.

2) I have enough "technical knowledge" to hack my FW and software so I never experience that again.

3) My sense of the NAS is as keen as any UAV pilot out there. I live by the 6 P's; "Prior Planning Prevents Piss-Poor Performance." I think you will find that a MAJORITY of the UAV pilots bitten by the DJI Nazis DID their due diligence. The DJI Nazi tests are quite random, I assure you.

This thread started not because there was something wrong with the DJI unlock process but because the OP did not plan in advance, did not double check everything before heading out, and a simple typo.

I see nothing in the OP to indicate anything you assert here. The OP seems to have done everything by the book.

That was exactly my point. If LAANC is built into DJI Go 4 and integrated with the unlock process then you will only ever be stopped in locations where you are not allowed to fly, by FAA regulations.

Not true. I suggest you read the OP again. In particular, this statement:

"...the former in a 50AGL NFZ and latter in a 0 AGL NFZ that I am able to easily get LAANC approval through Skyward."

So much for "LAANC approval" courtesy DJI....

As with any aircraft, the ultimate responsibility always resides with the PIC.

For the love of all that is holy, this is exactly what I've been saying all along. I'm not sure where we're getting disconnected. You seem to be advocating DJI taking the reigns. I say leave ALL responsibility up to the pilot 100%.

DJI isn't managing anything. Their systems try to help in making sure that you are aware of safety concerns and regulations.

By stopping you from flying where you are permitted to fly?????? I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point. Common sense be damned.

Again, with a simple process and a little planning, there are no issues flying where you are allowed to fly.

I suggest you read the OP again and contributing comments. I don't know what fairy dust world you live in, but back here on Earth, DJI is over-stepping their bounds and locking down birds in PERMITTED areas. I'm not sure how you're missing this very profound point.

D

 

[Drone on]

The process also eats up 3 minutes of battery power, eating up precious flight time. If you swap batteries, does the unlock endure, or do you have to keep repeating it?

I don't think it eats up that much battery power as the motors are not powered on.

In the end, you are going to have to work through many problems. If you were looking for plug and play, you might as well end your frustration early, and sell the drone