Geebax Posted at 2017-12-30 17:14
'Yes it does; the training involved for a part 61 license, for one thing, is a lot more stringent than it is for even a part 107 ticket. '

I have had my private pilot's licence here in Australia for 45 years, is that enough qualification for you. Actually, I did. I had to surrender it this year for medical reasons.

Yes, it is applicable, because it means the aircraft is going to descend out of control, possibly hitting someone or falling into the rotor of that helicopter you should not have been anywhere near. And under normal circumstances, the aircraft will automatically descend anyway under DJI's programming if the battery gets too low as well. So how is that any different to what you are arguing? It is still out of the control of the pilot, what is the difference between doing it in an NFZ to doing it over a housing area?

As I said, running out of battery is pilot error; also a simple matter of physics since we haven't yet perfected a method of endless fuel supply in an aircraft. That's a completely different thing than actively taking away control of a still perfectly-functioning and fueled aircraft. Both are bad, but one is only the pilot's fault. The other is both the pilot AND the a/c manufacturer's fault.

As you know, flying is all about minimizing risk - you can't completely eliminate it but you can do things to keep the risks as low as possible. Deliberately designing an interruption of control into an aircraft is one of those things that needlessly INCREASES greatly that risk. So is selling an aircraft to idiots, but that's a subject for another thread .

And why do you keep referring to 'busted firmware', it is not busted, it is intentionally programmed that way.

It is busted. It is designed to interrupt aircraft control - that's busted, full stop, end of story .

The other thing that makes this argument silly is that this action occurs some 5 miles from the zone it is trying to protect, in many cases well away from any dangerous area.

Where it occurs is not an excuse - there's no excuse, in fact, for deliberately taking away control of an aircraft from the PIC period. Unless it's designed and approved for autonomous flight - you can make that argument for RTH. But descending out of control of the pilot in a restricted area - no. That's a bad decision by DJI: it's just plain dumb, broken and dangerous.

luciens Posted at 2017-12-30 17:48
Yes, it is applicable, because it means the aircraft is going to descend out of control, possibly hitting someone or falling into the rotor of that helicopter you should not have been anywhere near. And under normal circumstances, the aircraft will automatically descend anyway under DJI's programming if the battery gets too low as well. So how is that any different to what you are arguing? It is still out of the control of the pilot, what is the difference between doing it in an NFZ to doing it over a housing area?

As I said, running out of battery is pilot error; also a simple matter of physics since we haven't yet perfected a method of endless fuel supply in an aircraft. That's a completely different thing than actively taking away control of a still perfectly-functioning and fueled aircraft. Both are bad, but one is only the pilot's fault. The other is both the pilot AND the a/c manufacturer's fault.

'Both are bad, but one is only the pilot's fault.'

Why do you keep bringing this up, if the aircraft falls out of the sky and hits someone, the outcome is the same, arguing about who was at fault is pointless after the fact. If it damaged anything or anyone, they are still damaged.

'there's no excuse, in fact, for deliberately taking away control of an aircraft from the PIC period. '

Yes there is, because if the aircraft got into this situation, then either the pilot is not in control or has ignored all previous warnings. Answer this, if the flyer has lost control of the aircraft and it has drifted into the NFZ, what should happen then?

Dirty Bird Posted at 2017-12-30 10:29
Appsrently you are offended or you wouldnt be bleating on...

https://youtu.be/XtfVexshRTo

O.k. I tried to ask you to end your harassment and insults.  
Since you refuse to show the simplest courtesy, its time to get the Admins involved.
Further comments will be reported as harassment as well.

The login requirement, even just once, makes absolutely no sense at all; i.e. it makes about as much sense as adding the capability to play MP3s to the drone (although I guess people will argue that would be good as well).

Edit: The only sensible solution on DJI's part is to remove the ridiculous login requirement

CraigR Posted at 2017-12-30 19:36
The login requirement, even just once, makes absolutely no sense at all; i.e. it makes about as much sense as adding the capability to play MP3s to the drone (although I guess people will argue that would be good as well).

Edit: The only sensible solution on DJI's part is to remove the ridiculous login requirement

It does make sense if you know what's coming. Soon the aircraft will have to broadcast an identification component in its transmission that identifies the flyer.

Geebax Posted at 2017-12-30 18:35
'Both are bad, but one is only the pilot's fault.'

Why do you keep bringing this up, if the aircraft falls out of the sky and hits someone, the outcome is the same, arguing about who was at fault is pointless after the fact. If it damaged anything or anyone, they are still damaged.

Why do you keep bringing this up, if the aircraft falls out of the sky and hits someone, the outcome is the same, arguing about who was at fault is pointless after the fact. If it damaged anything or anyone, they are still damaged.

Well, another pillar of aviation is: when an accident happens it's crucial to determine what went wrong so you can prevent it from happening again. So it's not only not pointless, but absolutely critical to determine fault in an accident. If it was pilot error by not planning the flight correctly and the battery is exhausted because of that, it's important to determine that so the proper corrective action can be taken. If it was a manufacturer defect, particularly a purposful, but bad, decision to cripple the aircraft in firmware, than that needs to be brought out as well, again so that the corrective action taken is proper. You can't just go "oh well, it's water under the bridge so let's let bygones be bygones", if you want to prevent a repeat of an accident. It just doesn't work that way.

Answer this, if the flyer has lost control of the aircraft and it has drifted into the NFZ, what should happen then?

As you already know, what we do in full scale is get the aircraft on the ground _in a controlled manner and in a proper location_ and make the situation safe _first_. _then_ the army guys come out and put the cuffs on, etc. That still requires _complete control of the aircraft_ to accomplish.
What you do NOT want is the aircraft going _out of control_ and doing who knows what or what someone at DJI decided it should do. That's the antithesis of making the situation safe as quickly as possible - you don't know what's going to happen or where it's going to come down at that point. Unknowns like that are poison in aviation.

so whatever has to be done at that point, human control of the aircraft must be maintained at all times regardless.

luciens Posted at 2017-12-30 20:40
Why do you keep bringing this up, if the aircraft falls out of the sky and hits someone, the outcome is the same, arguing about who was at fault is pointless after the fact. If it damaged anything or anyone, they are still damaged.

Well, another pillar of aviation is: when an accident happens it's crucial to determine what went wrong so you can prevent it from happening again. So it's not only not pointless, but absolutely critical to determine fault in an accident. If it was pilot error by not planning the flight correctly and the battery is exhausted because of that, it's important to determine that so the proper corrective action can be taken. If it was a manufacturer defect, particularly a purposful, but bad, decision to cripple the aircraft in firmware, than that needs to be brought out as well, again so that the corrective action taken is proper. You can't just go "oh well, it's water under the bridge so let's let bygones be bygones", if you want to prevent a repeat of an accident. It just doesn't work that way.

'As you already know, what we do in full scale is get the aircraft on the ground _in a controlled manner and in a proper location_ and make the situation safe _first_. _then_ the army guys come out and put the cuffs on, etc. That still requires _complete control of the aircraft_ to accomplish.
What you do NOT want is the aircraft going _out of control_ and doing who knows what or what someone at DJI decided it should do. That's the antithesis of making the situation safe as quickly as possible.

so whatever has to be done at that point, human control of the aircraft must be maintained at all times regardless.'

Did you comprehend what I wrote? In my scenario, which is so common it is reported almost every day on this forum, the operator loses control of the aircraft due to his lack of understanding of how to fly it. My extension on that is that it now flies off into the distance, entering a NFZ. There is no-one in control, period. How do you handle that?

Geebax Posted at 2017-12-30 20:50
'As you already know, what we do in full scale is get the aircraft on the ground _in a controlled manner and in a proper location_ and make the situation safe _first_. _then_ the army guys come out and put the cuffs on, etc. That still requires _complete control of the aircraft_ to accomplish.
What you do NOT want is the aircraft going _out of control_ and doing who knows what or what someone at DJI decided it should do. That's the antithesis of making the situation safe as quickly as possible.

Did you comprehend what I wrote? In my scenario, which is so common it is reported almost every day on this forum, the operator loses control of the aircraft due to his lack of understanding of how to fly it. My extension on that is that it now flies off into the distance, entering a NFZ. There is no-one in control, period. How do you handle that?

What did I just finish writing? Please reread what I wrote you carefully. I'll summarize it again: you're conflating two different things: pilot error with the aircraft still under control and _loss_ of control of the aircraft due to deliberate action (via firmware) by the manufacturer.  The former case still leaves the opportunity for the pilot to discover his mistake and correct the error (turn around and fly back out in a controlled manner, or put the aircraft down somewhere safe in a controlled manner). The latter removes that opportunity; the situation is then entirely in the hands of pure chance - that the "autoland" doesn't cause harm to persons or property on the ground as it makes its way down (fingers crossed).

If the aircraft goes out of control because of an exhausted battery for example, or the pilot can no longer see it and the FPV feed has gone out, etc., that of course is a different scenario. The aircraft is just out of control at that point and pretty much nothing can help the situation. But that's not what I'm talking about here.

luciens Posted at 2017-12-30 21:08
Did you comprehend what I wrote? In my scenario, which is so common it is reported almost every day on this forum, the operator loses control of the aircraft due to his lack of understanding of how to fly it. My extension on that is that it now flies off into the distance, entering a NFZ. There is no-one in control, period. How do you handle that?

What did I just finish writing? Please reread what I wrote you carefully. I'll summarize it again: you're conflating two different things: pilot error with the aircraft still under control and _loss_ of control of the aircraft due to deliberate action (via firmware) by the manufacturer.  The former case still leaves the opportunity for the pilot to discover his mistake and correct the error (turn around and fly back out in a controlled manner, or put the aircraft down somewhere safe in a controlled manner). The latter removes that opportunity; the situation is then entirely in the hands of pure chance - that the "autoland" doesn't cause harm to persons or property on the ground as it makes its way down (fingers crossed).

I have already agreed back on page 1 of thos discussion that the operator should be able to keep control and back out of the NFZ, so spare me the repetitive argument.

Just humour me and answer the simple question I posed.

Geebax Posted at 2017-12-30 21:32
Just humour me and answer the simple question I posed.

All due respect, but the question is somewhat loaded: if the aircraft is truly no longer under human control period, even if it got into that condition by pure pilot error, you can't "handle it". By definition, that's impossible. You only have automated choices at that point and all of them pretty sketchy - If I were forced to choose one of those, I'd mildly prefer an attempt at RTH. That at least provides the chance that the a/c might come back into range. That's still an aircraft sailing through a NFZ on its own, which is still bad. if the batt is dead, well, what can you do...

But that's beside the point we're debating here - the active takeover of the aircraft by the firmware in a potentially dangerous situation, rather than leaving the a/c under human control (so that at least humans are still in the loop in resolving the situation).

Labroides Posted at 2017-12-30 16:19
people are sheeps ... and will continue to buy these products despite so many problems and failures......
What problems and failures?
I continue to buy and use DJI equipment because it's a better product than anything else available and does the job extremely well.

i agreed  ... it s an awesome product ...  maybe you can afford most expensive and better Dji Products , not me ,  but you know  that there are too much people getting problems , and the problem is clear : compatibility and comunication between devices . this is the point

"Power is nothing without control "

Geebax Posted at 2017-12-30 20:04
It does make sense if you know what's coming. Soon the aircraft will have to broadcast an identification component in its transmission that identifies the flyer.

Oh, it's about spying on customers (or enabling the capability). Since that's the case then I guess it's ok and it's good for the customer/client after all.

Nebuchadnezzar Posted at 2017-12-31 01:15
i agreed  ... it s an awesome product ...  maybe you can afford most expensive and better Dji Products , not me ,  but you know  that there are too much people getting problems , and the problem is clear : compatibility and comunication between devices . this is the point

"Power is nothing without control "

there are too much people getting problems , and the problem is clear : compatibility and comunication between devices . this is the point
Use a good tablet and the hardware runs like magic.
There are many that use sub-standard equipment and many that aren' sure what they are doing but I don't think you can blame DJI for that

I have ONLY logged in once....I've been flying ever since DJI decided to add this "log in" feature months ago on the same "log in". If you have logged out from the DJI app...then the next time you want to fly, you will need to log back in....so....don't ever log out!

Labroides Posted at 2017-12-31 02:03
there are too much people getting problems , and the problem is clear : compatibility and comunication between devices . this is the point
Use a good tablet and the hardware runs like magic.
There are many that use sub-standard equipment and many that aren' sure what they are doing but I don't think you can blame DJI for that

i blame myself .... and you know why

Happy Days for all my friends !!

Nebuchadnezzar Posted at 2017-12-31 04:43
i blame myself .... and you know why

Happy Days for all my friends !!

Happy New Year to you I have a P4 that I need to go and take for its first flight but the weather is not good at the moment. Fortunately it seems to bee OK with my Nexus 7

Dirty Bird Posted at 2017-12-30 10:28
Aeroscope is a reality.  It isn't paranoia when they are actually doing it.  Im no fan of having my info & location broadcast live.  One mord reason i dont runvthe latest.

Its your choice to have it displayed or not in the app

Dirty Bird Posted at 2017-12-31 08:41
On the forced auto-land @10%:  Do we force manned aircraft to immediately land when they get to 10% fuel remaining?  Afterall they aren't "out of fuel" they are only "low on fuel."  Some of us know how far our birds can go on a battery & we should have the option  to disable this (as well as Smart-RTH) without having to hack the firmware.

Agree, I would class this behavior in the same category, though it's not quite as pernicious as the NFZ auto-do-who-knows-what situation. I don't really object to this as much, even though the principle is more or less the same (active takeover of the aircraft by the firmware).

Even so, most other R/C equipment like Futaba's radios just stay on until the battery is dead. They'll warn you with beeps but they will still remain functional until the absolute bitter end. That's good design because Futaba knows that their radios cannot determine the safety of a particular situation at any point in the flight better than a human being can. So they elect to leave the human being in control until it's just not possible anymore (dead batt).

The DJI design, OTOH, does try to override the judgment of the human PIC and force the aircraft to act on its own. That's bad, and very dangerous, design. Again, I don;t object to autoland-at-10% as much, because that's at least a little more innocent of a thing to do as a practical matter. But the principle is still pretty much the same....

Dirty Bird Posted at 2017-12-31 08:41
On the forced auto-land @10%:  Do we force manned aircraft to immediately land when they get to 10% fuel remaining?  Afterall they aren't "out of fuel" they are only "low on fuel."  Some of us know how far our birds can go on a battery & we should have the option  to disable this (as well as Smart-RTH) without having to hack the firmware.

The 10% reading is an approximation, because it is incredibly difficult to tell when the battery is exhausted. A slower, controlled descent to the ground is much safer than having it free-fall. By 'manned aircraft', are you referring to a full-size passenger carrying multirotor aircraft, because I can't see a fixed wing aircraft being forced to land by an automated system when it is nowhere near an airport.

luciens Posted at 2017-12-31 09:25
Agree, I would class this behavior in the same category, though it's not quite as pernicious as the NFZ auto-do-who-knows-what situation. I don't really object to this as much, even though the principle is more or less the same (active takeover of the aircraft by the firmware).

Even so, most other R/C equipment like Futaba's radios just stay on until the battery is dead. They'll warn you with beeps but they will still remain functional until the absolute bitter end. That's good design because Futaba knows that their radios cannot determine the safety of a particular situation at any point in the flight better than a human being can. So they elect to leave the human being in control until it's just not possible anymore (dead batt).

'Even so, most other R/C equipment like Futaba's radios just stay on until the battery is dead. They'll warn you with beeps but they will still remain functional until the absolute bitter end. That's good design because Futaba knows that their radios cannot determine the safety of a particular situation at any point in the flight better than a human being can. So they elect to leave the human being in control until it's just not possible anymore (dead batt). '

Are you aware of the fact that a Futaba system is not in full control of the aircraft and could not auto-land it even if it wanted to? This is especially true for a conventional winged aircraft. Add to that the fact that the Radio Control system is not making those decisions anyway, it is the control system in the Phantom. Putting up these poorly thought out arguments does nothing for your credibility.

Dirty Bird Posted at 2017-12-31 15:06
There is no question it is better to land than fall from the sky.  I can only say in my experience with DJI quads, thousands of flights many being to the limit, I have NEVER had one simply fall from the sky because the battery shut down.  I have had batteries geek out where they couldn't supply enough power to maintain continued flight necessitating that I land, but even then they didn't just shut down.  My complaint is with the inflexible nature of the software.  Some of us are sophisticated & savvy enough to think for ourselves.  I don't want my bird auto-landing at 10%.  As I've said before it is the difference between completing a mission & landing 1500' short in the drink.  It is ashamed that I have to resort to hacking the firmware in order to turn it off.

I was referring to ANY manned aircraft.  Aircraft aren't forced to auto-land on-the-spot because the low fuel light comes on.  They aren't out of fuel they are just low.  You can go a long way on 10% battery.  You could cover an entire mile!

Some of us are sophisticated & savvy enough to understand the limitations of the aircraft we fly.
We know that the last 10% indicated is not reliable and understand what happens if we were to hit 10% while still out there.
We take note of the first low battery warning and aim to have our drones back before 10%.
We understand the effect of wind and take that into account.
Understanding all that is part of the experience necessary to fly these things properly.
Failing to do that is operator error.

Geebax Posted at 2017-12-31 14:49
'Even so, most other R/C equipment like Futaba's radios just stay on until the battery is dead. They'll warn you with beeps but they will still remain functional until the absolute bitter end. That's good design because Futaba knows that their radios cannot determine the safety of a particular situation at any point in the flight better than a human being can. So they elect to leave the human being in control until it's just not possible anymore (dead batt). '

Are you aware of the fact that a Futaba system is not in full control of the aircraft and could not auto-land it even if it wanted to? This is especially true for a conventional winged aircraft. Putting up these poorly thought out arguments does nothing for your credibility.

Explain: in what way is the system not in control of the a/c?

Dirty Bird Posted at 2017-12-31 15:06
There is no question it is better to land than fall from the sky.  I can only say in my experience with DJI quads, thousands of flights many being to the limit, I have NEVER had one simply fall from the sky because the battery shut down.  I have had batteries geek out where they couldn't supply enough power to maintain continued flight necessitating that I land, but even then they didn't just shut down.  My complaint is with the inflexible nature of the software.  Some of us are sophisticated & savvy enough to think for ourselves.  I don't want my bird auto-landing at 10%.  As I've said before it is the difference between completing a mission & landing 1500' short in the drink.  It is ashamed that I have to resort to hacking the firmware in order to turn it off.

I was referring to ANY manned aircraft.  Aircraft aren't forced to auto-land on-the-spot because the low fuel light comes on.  They aren't out of fuel they are just low.  You can go a long way on 10% battery.  You could cover an entire mile!

'Some of us are sophisticated & savvy enough to think for ourselves. '

As I have said too many times now, DJI are not programming for those of us who think, it is for those who don't. And, as you say, you can circumvent that action anyway.

luciens Posted at 2017-12-31 15:59
Explain: in what way is the system not in control of the a/c?

The Futaba system you refer to is simply a radio control system, it has no idea what it is fitted to, it could be a model submarine for all it knows.

In a simialr way, the DJI RC Unit has no idea of what is going on either, only the control system in the aircraft knows that, and it is the airborne system that is making these decisions for the very good reason that the radio link may have been lost.

Geebax Posted at 2017-12-31 16:09
The Futaba system you refer to is simply a radio control system, it has no idea what it is fitted to, it could be a model submarine for all it knows.

In a simialr way, the DJI RC Unit has no idea of what is going on either, only the control system in the aircraft knows that, and it is the airborne system that is making these decisions for the very good reason that the radio link may have been lost.

The Futaba system you refer to is simply a radio control system, it has no idea what it is fitted to, it could be a model submarine for all it knows.

That in no way means the "futaba system is not in control of the aircraft". What does "futaba system is not in control of the aircraft" mean?
We're talking about _pilot_ control of the aircraft in this thread, and whether that control is being intentionally taken away by the system.

In a simialr way, the DJI RC Unit has no idea of what is going on either, only the control system in the aircraft knows that, and it is the airborne system that is making these decisions for the very good reason that the radio link may have been lost.

We're not talking about automating responses to a radio link having been lost (though you and Dirty Bird might be). You're confusing that with the original topic: the system (DJI in other words) taking pilot control away based on its own ideas of safety (overriding the judgment of a human being).

luciens Posted at 2017-12-31 16:27
The Futaba system you refer to is simply a radio control system, it has no idea what it is fitted to, it could be a model submarine for all it knows.

That in no way means the "futaba system is not in control of the aircraft". What does "futaba system is not in control of the aircraft" mean?

'That in no way means the "futaba system is not in control of the aircraft". What does "futaba system is not in control of the aircraft" mean?
We're talking about _pilot_ control of the aircraft in this thread, and whether that control is being intentionally taken away by the system.'

I dunno, what is not clear about that? Using the Futaba example is flawed, because the Futaba radio control system has no automated control capability over the aircraft, it is simply a remote control. In a Phantom, the flight control system in the aircraft is making the decision as to what the aircraft can do or not do and when to implement automated safety routines. The radio control system has nothing to do with those decisions.

' You're confusing that with the original topic: the system (DJI in other words) taking pilot control away based on its own ideas of safety (overriding the judgment of a human being).'

Actually, none of this discussion has anything to do with the original topic, that was a rant by the OP about having to log in to fly.

Geebax Posted at 2017-12-31 16:36
'That in no way means the "futaba system is not in control of the aircraft". What does "futaba system is not in control of the aircraft" mean?
We're talking about _pilot_ control of the aircraft in this thread, and whether that control is being intentionally taken away by the system.'

I dunno, what is not clear about that?
Well, the statement is clearly nonsense. Futaba systems give the pilot exquisite control of R/C aircraft and have done so for decades. So you're clearly confusing something when you say what you said.

Using the Futaba example is flawed, because the Futaba radio control system has no automated control capability over the aircraft, it is simply a remote control. In a Phantom, the flight control system in the aircraft is making the decision as to what the aircraft can do or not do and when to implement automated safety routines. The radio control system has nothing to do with those decisions.

On the contrary, the two systems highlight precisely the topic of this thread - maintaining _pilot_ control over the aircraft vs seizing it away from the pilot. In the basic Futaba case, a good design, the system does _not_ make its own judgments about safety of flight, since it has no situational awareness, and simply continues to perform its function until it simply cannot do so anymore - it rightly maintains control in the hands of the PIC to the fullest possible extent of its design. The DJI case, on the other hand, a very bad and dangerous design, _does_ choose to attempt to make its own judgments about safety of flight, _without_ the requisite situational awareness, and blindly takes away PIC control of the aircraft under conditions of its own choosing, even when the aircraft and control link are still in perfectly good flying condition.

And it has been my contention throughout that the DJI design is dangerous for reasons that I think are obvious. You, on the other hand, seem convinced that an out-of-control aircraft is ok even when that decision to take control is done without situational awareness. With some complaining and carrying on about a truly bizarre engineering philosophy that thinks it's better to design systems around improper usage and idiot sabotage rather than for suitability to purpose.

That seems to be where you're stuck and I'm not sure why you're continuing here....  

Dirty Bird Posted at 2017-12-31 16:54
Obviously you aren't that sophisticated or savvy if you need to rely on the aircraft to make decisions for you.   So I suppose Baby Mode is a good choice for you.  It can be a toggle in the settings just so you feel safe & secure.  Kindly allow the adults to make our own decisions.  Thanks.

That is a very unworthy response. You disappoint me.

luciens Posted at 2017-12-31 16:49
I dunno, what is not clear about that?
Well, the statement is clearly nonsense. Futaba systems give the pilot exquisite control of R/C aircraft and have done so for decades. So you're clearly confusing something when you say what you said.

'Well, the statement is clearly nonsense. Futaba systems give the pilot exquisite control of R/C aircraft and have done so for decades. So you're clearly confusing something when you say what you said.'

We are not talking about R/C aircraft here, and the Futaba argument is BS. What you are arguing against is the flight control system in the Phantom aircraft, NOT the simple R/.C control radio link, which is all a Futaba system is. Even full size aircraft do not always allow the pilot to fully control the aircraft, the Space Shuttle being the most obvious example. The shuttle was literally impossible to fly, so the control system was automated, with the pilot having input to the control system. He had no direct control over the aircraft. The same occurs with modern fly by wire airliners, the pilot has input to the system, but not direct control. Are Airbus and Boeing therefore guilty of taking control away from the pilot?

You also don't seem to recognise the substantial difference between fl;ying a real aircraft and having a toy controlled by an untrained operator. Comparisions between the two are ridiculous and somehow desperate.

Geebax Posted at 2017-12-31 17:15
'Well, the statement is clearly nonsense. Futaba systems give the pilot exquisite control of R/C aircraft and have done so for decades. So you're clearly confusing something when you say what you said.'

We are not talking about R/C aircraft here, and the Futaba argument is BS. What you are arguing against is the flight control system in the Phantom aircraft, NOT the simple R/.C control radio link, which is all a Futaba system is. Even full size aircraft do not always allow the pilot to fully control the aircraft, the Space Shuttle being the most obvious example. The shuttle was literally impossible to fly, so the control system was automated, with the pilot having input to the control system. He had no direct control over the aircraft. The same occurs with modern fly by wire airliners, the pilot has input to the system, but not direct control. Are Airbus and Boeing therefore guilty of taking control away from the pilot?

You're going round in circles now and are confusing and/or missing points I've already addressed earlier. I'll just refer you back to the previous posts in the thread to avoid repetition.

luciens Posted at 2017-12-31 17:31
You're going round in circles now and are confusing and/or missing points I've already addressed earlier. I'll just refer you back to the previous posts in the thread to avoid repetition.

No, I am  not missing points at all. You clearly do not have any real understanding of the way real systems work, and keep harping on about the PIC example, which is not relevant to a toy aircraft. There is no certified aircraft that flies like a Phantom, so no actual rules have been devised by any of the controlling bodies world-wide to control how it reacts under emergency circumstances. You keep offering up the ridiculous example of what would happen if a real aircraft decided to land itself, yet no certified aircraft exists yet that could do that anyway.

Dirty Bird Posted at 2017-12-31 17:31
I guess we have something in common then.  I find it rather unworthy & disappointing for someone to declare that I am somehow an unsafe operator if I don't land by 10% like the Great Labroides.  

Life lesson in the difference between Liberals & Conservatives.  A Conservative decides to become a vegetarian.  He eats his veggies & you are free to eat what you like.  A Liberal decides to become a vegetarian.  He eats his veggies & by golly you are damned-well going to eat your veggies too!

This odd willingness to give up control could be metaphorical too, an indication of cultural differences. DJI is a Chinese company subject to the Chinese government; Dirty Bird and I are Americans accustomed to American ways vis-a-vis our culture of individual freedom, etc. To us, it's a sacrilege generally to have restrictions like we're talking about imposed on us. But for all we know it might be just generally acceptable for Chinese companies to do this kind of thing with their products.

But in aviation generally the notion of control is absolutely sacred, for obvious reasons. When a manned aircraft goes out of control, fatalities are the usual result so pilots typically revolt at the notion of surrendering control of an aircraft when it's in flight.

At least that's what I was taught, and pilots or other advocates who seem ok with defective equipment that interferes with control of the aircraft also seem to me to be a couple cans short of a six-pack . If not having a kind of death wish or just don't care. But I suppose there are such pilots out there, strange as they seem to me.

luciens Posted at 2017-12-31 18:06
This odd willingness to give up control could be metaphorical too, an indication of cultural differences. DJI is a Chinese company subject to the Chinese government; Dirty Bird and I are Americans accustomed to American ways vis-a-vis our culture of individual freedom, etc. To us, it's a sacrilege generally to have restrictions like we're talking about imposed on us. But for all we know it might be just generally acceptable for Chinese companies to do this kind of thing with their products.

But in aviation generally the notion of control is absolutely sacred, for obvious reasons. When a manned aircraft goes out of control, fatalities are the usual result so pilots typically revolt at the notion of surrendering control of an aircraft when it's in flight.

'DJI is a Chinese company subject to the Chinese government; Dirty Bird and I are Americans accustomed to American ways vis-a-vis our culture of individual freedom, etc. To us, it's a sacrilege generally to have restrictions like we're talking about imposed on us.'

Yes, it is an American thing, but if you think the Chinese Government made DJI program their aircraft this way, you are pointing trhe finger in the wrong direction.

Dirty Bird Posted at 2017-12-31 08:24
Seriously dude how old are you?

Responding to your posts is not "harassment."  If you find members replying to your posts troublesome I suggest you refrain from posting.  That way you won't risk being "harassed" by replies.

Reported for continued harassment, insults and trolling.

Geebax Posted at 2017-12-31 18:21
'DJI is a Chinese company subject to the Chinese government; Dirty Bird and I are Americans accustomed to American ways vis-a-vis our culture of individual freedom, etc. To us, it's a sacrilege generally to have restrictions like we're talking about imposed on us.'

Yes, it is an American thing, but if you think the Chinese Government made DJI program their aircraft this way, you are pointing trhe finger in the wrong direction.

I spent 10 years as a missionary to China.  Trying to implement "american ways" into a Chinese culture usually only results in a blank stare.  Like when Hillary Clinton went to China to speak about "womens' rights" to a nation of generations programmed under such suppression.  The dots don't always connect.

Of course I don't expect all americans to understand the difference in cultures, but never the less, we are indeed playing with a product of Chinese culture trying to conform to a global scale.  For the most part, I can't complain.

Dirty Bird Posted at 2017-12-31 16:54
Obviously you aren't that sophisticated or savvy if you need to rely on the aircraft to make decisions for you.   So I suppose Baby Mode is a good choice for you.  It can be a toggle in the settings just so you feel safe & secure.  Kindly allow the adults to make our own decisions.  Thanks.

I'm quite happy to let you make your own decisions however wise or unwise they might be.

Dirty Bird Posted at 2017-12-31 19:36
Thank you.  It sure is mighty considerate of you to allow people the freedom to make their own choices.

No ... that's just the way most people work without any need to make pathetic attempts to put people down or try to see everything as some sort of political battle.

Kuya Kano Posted at 2017-12-31 18:47
I spent 10 years as a missionary to China.  Trying to implement "american ways" into a Chinese culture usually only results in a blank stare.  Like when Hillary Clinton went to China to speak about "womens' rights" to a nation of generations programmed under such suppression.  The dots don't always connect.

Of course I don't expect all americans to understand the difference in cultures, but never the less, we are indeed playing with a product of Chinese culture trying to conform to a global scale.  For the most part, I can't complain.

yep, I suspect that's part of it, especially when issues like these come up. On the other hand, I find their resistance to implementation of "American ways" in their culture very admirable and I wouldn't want that to change. So it may be up to us to adapt, rather than them, as we increasingly do business with Chinese businesses and corporations....

luciens Posted at 2018-1-1 08:47
yep, I suspect that's part of it, especially when issues like these come up. On the other hand, I find their resistance to implementation of "American ways" in their culture very admirable and I wouldn't want that to change. So it may be up to us to adapt, rather than them, as we increasingly do business with Chinese businesses and corporations....

As americans, we often have this foolish belief of  of "everyone wishes they could be like us".  As one married to someone on the other side of the planet, I get a lot of "why do americans..." questions which pretty much negates the previous notion.  
Our way is not "the only way", in how things are done.  And sometimes if you put aside such notions, you discover logic in ways that we don't posses as does other countries.  Imagine what we could learn from one another if pride wasn't the barrier of learning and understanding.

This is really simple. DJI is taking its problems (i.e. the FAA and inept drone pilots) and pushing those problems onto you, the customer by adding unnecessary restrictions (i.e. no-fly zones, forced autoland, forced login, altitude limits, etc.). Technically, you are better off having as many options as possible. DJI's log-in-or-you-can't-fly policy is just one of the many ways DJI is limiting your options, for their sole benefit. Do you really own your aircraft or does DJI own it?