web_parrot Posted at 2018-1-19 15:55
Nonsense.  That like saying that a car manufactuer is responsible for making sure its' buyers/drivers are good drivers, never drink while impared, keep their insurance updated and paid, and follow ALL the rules (including coming to a complete STOP before turning right on red.)  ;-)

So you think it's a good idea for an auto manufacturer to intentionally and knowingly try to sell cars to people who've never driven a car? And have no idea how to do so?
How about manned aircraft to take a more extreme example. Do you think it's a good idea for a helicopter manufacturer for example to sell helis to people who they know have never flown any type of aircraft?

Firehawk989 Posted at 2018-1-19 11:07
Anyone who uses comic sans in their videos should not be allowed to pilot a drone.

Hahahaha! I love it.

But seriously here. I think DJI does it's best to communicate NFZ but when it comes right down to it, it's not their sole responsibility. It's the pilots responsibility to research the legality before they fly in a new area. But it's also the responsibility of that country/city/county/province to clearly communicate their drone laws. Right now we don't have one unified app/website/rulebook for what's legal and what's not. But hopefully time will clear these muddy waters and provide concise NFZ and fly zones. I think what's happening is just a case of technology moving faster than lawmakers.

A CW Posted at 2018-1-19 16:44
I get what you're saying about public perception - it's easy to sit here as a 40+ year old, experienced drone pilot and see through marketing and know that an organisation of this size will have a legal team, PR team etc around them to ensure every second of any advert is 100% permitted to sustain profitability and uphold their credibility. However, I agree that an 18 year old may very well unbox his or her Spark and start flying it around Sydney Harbour because that's what they think they're allowed to do from what they've seen on the advert or you tube.
My point is this - does that responsibility for that 18 year old rest with DJI? It's now your turn to look at the bigger picture - DJI are targeting a very wide market base including professional pilots who, with a waiver, will be able to do exactly what they are advertising. Does the responsibility to educate that 18 year old not rest with the person who physically handed over the drone at point of sale in the store or for the national aviation authority to press more for the education of safe flying or the ministry for transport on behalf of the government who impose the laws in the first place to invoke new legislation in making tests and licensing mandatory? Or does it not rest with the adult who bought the product to learn how to fly it safely and legally by reading the manual, doing their research, watching the tutorials, coming on here to troubleshoot their problems. If a drone crashes into someones head is it the responsibility of the person who made the product or the person flying the drone who crashed the product by not doing what they were instructed to do in the manual. Or do we blame the you tubers you follow who think its cool to throw that very manual away whenever they do an unboxing video as it's only cool stuff that get the subs and likes right... It's very easy to blame DJI, put it that way!

And I get what you are saying about where the responsibility lies, that DJI ultimately cannot be held responsible for how their product is used. Sorry if it sounded like I was blaming DJI! I was kind of thinking along the lines of a "shared" responsibility, that we are all seen to be doing our bit to make sure everyone is being safe. I have seen members of this forum reminding others to keep their craft in Line of Sight for example, they are helping others keep safe, not because they are responsible for them (because you are right, the individual is ultimately responsible), but perhaps because they would like everyone to be doing the right thing because it reflects well on our hobby or it's just general good advice.
CASA already does a fair bit on the education side of things, but I fear that the government may just clamp down on drone flying if they feel the education isn't working (which won't be good for our hobby).
Yes, I get that DJI have a wide consumer market, however the professional pilots that can do what is being shown would be a much smaller proportion, and DJI would be better off showing what most people could do on a Facebook page welcoming Australians to DJI Facebook Australia.
Finally, I just wish that DJI could have chosen a different image (maybe it wouldn't have as much wow factor as Sydney Harbour), there are plenty of beautiful locations in Australia they could have chosen that are legal for the wider population to fly in. Just not Sydney Harbour.

luciens Posted at 2018-1-19 17:08
Well more to the point, to drive in public places you need to know how to drive a car. Think about it: what if an auto manufacturer intentionally sold cars to people who'd never learned how to drive one? Or at best, didn't care if those buyers could drive?

They literally dont care, who buys and pays there products
And not every drone buyer flies it.
Or do you think, dji needs to tell the grandma, buying a nice xmas gift for her grandson, to back off, because she isnt expected to understand how to fly it?
There is a big difference between selling a product and the legal obligations, to use it.
The car manufacturers are happy to sell , but not even the insurance payer or the registered owner of that car needs to have a driving license.
Only the driver needs to have one

S-e-ven Posted at 2018-1-19 19:13
They literally dont care, who buys and pays there products
And not every drone buyer flies it.
Or do you think, dji needs to tell the grandma, buying a nice xmas gift for her grandson, to back off, because she isnt expected to understand how to fly it?

That's not really what I asked you, though. What I asked was, what would you think about an auto manufacturer knowingly and willingly selling cars to people who couldn't operate motor vehicles safely? Do you think that's a good idea?
How about the more extreme case of knowingly and willingly selling manned aircraft to people who'd never flown before? Despite the hazards they know could result? No rules, no restrictions: you as a manufacturer can sell whatever you want to whoever you want.

Think about it: is that ok? Would you feel comfortable doing that?

This thread seems to have gone a bit off-topic so I thought I would add some FACTS.

Drone flying in Sydney Harbour is a big problem in Australia
http://www.news.com.au/technolog ... 2e4a7c35533a12b397d
http://www.flightsafetyaustralia ... and-you-in-trouble/
http://eftm.com.au/2017/04/drone ... ydney-harbour-38387
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/dashca ... 0170511-gw2h5q.html

Although it is not clear if the image was taken illegally, it is a fact that drone flying in Sydney Harbour is a problem in Australia, and it is a fact that DJI Facebook Australia have an image of flying a drone in Sydney Harbour.

I agree. An accurate portrayal of the situation would find it quite hard for the casual flyer to legally fly anywhere in the UK at all. My earlier point on insurance where I was slammed down by acw is that I fear an insurance claim since without obeying every detail of the drone code one could be very exposed. Many ,(not a synonym for most)  clearly do not have a spotter, VLOS, landowners' permission when flying hence may be uninsured regardless.

Stating that ‘many’ is not synonymous with the ‘majority’ does not quantify your statement which is clearly unquantifiable as unfounded and totally a figment of your imagination. Prove me wrong by showing me the percentage and posting the link to your official source.

I've seen so many featured videos on this forum that clearly violated local rules and regulations. It's possible that some of them had proper permits, but most didn't and they clearly stated in their threads that no permits were issued. Here's one: https://forum.dji.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=127597

I agree that DJI shouldn't promote these videos, or at least they should put some sort of a disclaimer with every featured video.

100% agree that DJI has a responsibility to moderate these videos. Looking at some of the "Vote for the best work in 2017" and the "Best drone shots of 2017" and you can quite clearly see some people violating the rules. DJI should not be promoting such use and should in no way be awarding prizes etc... to these drone users.

As we all know, the flying of drones is a hot topic at the moment with alot of people against us flying them. The only stories that ever make the news is when some idiot decides to fly in to and Airports airspace or when someone is caught dropping drugs into a prison yard. I have seen numerous posts on here showing people violating the 400ft rule. I was shocked a while ago when someone posted a video of "Flying above the clouds" only for a DJI moderator to say how good the video was, yes that same DJI moderator did say to "Fly carefully" etc.... but to not remove the video and post from the forums shows a distinct lack of judgement on DJI's part.

Greg Glasson Posted at 2018-1-19 17:45
And I get what you are saying about where the responsibility lies, that DJI ultimately cannot be held responsible for how their product is used. Sorry if it sounded like I was blaming DJI! I was kind of thinking along the lines of a "shared" responsibility, that we are all seen to be doing our bit to make sure everyone is being safe. I have seen members of this forum reminding others to keep their craft in Line of Sight for example, they are helping others keep safe, not because they are responsible for them (because you are right, the individual is ultimately responsible), but perhaps because they would like everyone to be doing the right thing because it reflects well on our hobby or it's just general good advice.
CASA already does a fair bit on the education side of things, but I fear that the government may just clamp down on drone flying if they feel the education isn't working (which won't be good for our hobby).
Yes, I get that DJI have a wide consumer market, however the professional pilots that can do what is being shown would be a much smaller proportion, and DJI would be better off showing what most people could do on a Facebook page welcoming Australians to DJI Facebook Australia.

The transition between marketing a product and the consumer believing that is exactly what the product is able to do when in their control is an age old debate in advertising. The point is that DJI are legally able to promote their products as they do because their pilots have the permission, skills and experience to show case the product to make it more attractive to drive sales. That is not illegal or irresponsible - that is the way business is conducted. I agree, everyone involved in the process of flying drones from R&D to the consumer to the government enforcing laws and regulations (and everyone in-between) has a duty of care to ensure flight safety but nobody more than the person holding the RC looking at the drone in the air whilst in their control. When I take one of my drones out later this weekend I am under no illusion - I am responsible for it's flight and any new pilot flying a drone around Sydney harbour who states in court that the rationale for why they did that is because DJI did in their advertising would be indefensible. Perhaps some type of small print disclaimer is needed but official resellers in the UK are now including and highlighting the CAA drone code at point of sale to the consumer - which is a good thing. Intersting debate Greg - thanks for raising it.

Dear acw, I defer to you other than to say I hope we can agree that many people are prosecuted for drink drive offences, but some  or none of them may know that they have invalidated their insurance.

A CW Posted at 2018-1-20 01:55
The transition between marketing a product and the consumer believing that is exactly what the product is able to do when in their control is an age old debate in advertising. The point is that DJI are legally able to promote their products as they do because their pilots have the permission, skills and experience to show case the product to make it more attractive to drive sales. That is not illegal or irresponsible - that is the way business is conducted. I agree, everyone involved in the process of flying drones from R&D to the consumer to the government enforcing laws and regulations (and everyone in-between) has a duty of care to ensure flight safety but nobody more than the person holding the RC looking at the drone in the air whilst in their control. When I take one of my drones out later this weekend I am under no illusion - I am responsible for it's flight and any new pilot flying a drone around Sydney harbour who states in court that the rationale for why they did that is because DJI did in their advertising would be indefensible. Perhaps some type of small print disclaimer is needed but official resellers in the UK are now including and highlighting the CAA drone code at point of sale to the consumer - which is a good thing. Intersting debate Greg - thanks for raising it.

Thank-you A CW for contributing to this discussion also. Unfortunately I started a similar discussion on Sparkpilots but it was shut down by the moderator (who stated that it was "not a valid conversation").
BOO! Sparkpilots.
Great to see freedom of speech is respected on this DJI Forum!

Bright Spark Posted at 2018-1-20 01:58
Dear acw, I defer to you other than to say I hope we can agree that many people are prosecuted for drink drive offences, but some  or none of them may know that they have invalidated their insurance.

Dear Bright Spark - I have no idea as I don't have any official stats. I can therefore only presume that if an individual is foolish enough to drive a vehicle whilst inebriated that at least they have the common sense to realise that the vehicle they are responsible for (and not the manufacturer) will not be covered as using the vehicle whilst committing a criminal offence will make the policy null and void. How many don't know this - your guess is as good as mine and a little off topic anyway.

Thanks for your info. I just worry that violating the drone code may render my insurance invalid, as seem likely from what you say. But thanks for the interest. BS

In my country, urban areas are no fly zones.
Plenty of users here could be said to promote flying at such places.

No worries - think about it - if you fly in line with the drone code you don’t actually need insurance but you need the certificate to prove that you have it to fly in designated model aircraft areas. If my drone malfunctions whilst I’m flying in line with the drone code and crash lands beyond my control into a third party I am insured. Check out FPVUK.org - if you wish to join and cover yourself with a CAA approved membership as I have.  

Thanks for info. I may well do that. I have had BMFA  cover for years where I fly rc so that may be adequate. But a drone needs new scenery  now and then.  Here in Oxfordshire I have not yet found new pastures!

The BMFA is a huge organisation in RC - just be sure they cover drones within your membership.

Late coming to the party, I haven’t read all posts, but interesting thread and very informative.
My view is that while dji needs to be responsible for what they promote and how they promote it will and should always be to encourage more users of the opportunity and possibilities of drone flying. By showing the iconic view we all have in our minds of Australia, for me is the right thing to do and to do something else would be to cheapen the possibilities of this fairly new form or art.

Yes I agree that they should always promote safe flying for all users of drones, this forum is a great platform for to promote and educate new and old users of the need to fly responsibly and threads like this are a good example of how many want to learn to get the most from flying in a responsible manner.

When you receive your drone first there are many warnings as to how you should use and fly your drone safely, in fact most of the literature you receive is about safety and the need to fly safely in your location and how to set up your aircraft safely and most of all to be responsible in how you conduct this.

I don’t believe we should try to dampen the possibilities or discourage what is possible with this new technology but continue to encourage those who wish to learn the great experience they are about to embark on, of course there are rules which must be adhered to, opportunities to take such pictures of Sydney harbour will need permission and certain certificates, but the possibility will always there for those who are responsible and willing to learn and find out to make this possibility come to fruition.

I don’t believe that those who post illegal footage or photographs are doing so because they have seen others doing so, they are well aware what they are doing is irresponsible and should be held responsible for not following the correct procedure or process to attain their footage or photographs they have posted, and if they plead ignorance because they have seen dji posting a similar project , this just shows how irresponsible they really are, there is not a lot we can do for those who want to ignore, but there is plenty we can do for those who wish to learn and these are the future of flying drones responsibly.

“Your conscience is the measure of the honesty of your selfishness.
Listen to it carefully.”

hallmark007 Posted at 2018-1-20 04:01
Late coming to the party, I haven’t read all posts, but interesting thread and very informative.
My view is that while dji needs to be responsible for what they promote and how they promote it will and should always be to encourage more users of the opportunity and possibilities of drone flying. By showing the iconic view we all have in our minds of Australia, for me is the right thing to do and to do something else would be to cheapen the possibilities of this fairly new form or art.

Hallmark, I get your point about DJI showing what is possible with their technology, giving us ideas to aspire to. However, in order to fly in Sydney Harbour would require a commercial drone operators licence that costs $15,000 AUD.... I think this is out of the realms of possibility for most of us hobbyists.
And although Sydney Harbour is a beautiful iconic image, it might give people the wrong impression that it is okay to fly there. I know we should all be knowledgable about the rules and regulations etc, and that there is individual responsibility, but I wish they could have chosen a different image in recognition that drone flying in Sydney Harbour is a problem...

luciens Posted at 2018-1-19 17:10
So you think it's a good idea for an auto manufacturer to intentionally and knowingly try to sell cars to people who've never driven a car? And have no idea how to do so?
How about manned aircraft to take a more extreme example. Do you think it's a good idea for a helicopter manufacturer for example to sell helis to people who they know have never flown any type of aircraft?

Car manufactuers don't sell cars.  Their dealerships do.  Your original rhetorical question is/was, "Should DJI be promoting drone law breaking?" .... I'm simply drawing an anaolgy where a manufacturer creates a product that people can buy.  They are not responsible for determining if the purchaser is capable of using it.  (I'm also trying to avoid any comparisons with weapons manufacturing-snark)

web_parrot Posted at 2018-1-21 13:17
Car manufactuers don't sell cars.  Their dealerships do.  Your original rhetorical question is/was, "Should DJI be promoting drone law breaking?" .... I'm simply drawing an anaolgy where a manufacturer creates a product that people can buy.  They are not responsible for determining if the purchaser is capable of using it.  (I'm also trying to avoid any comparisons with weapons manufacturing-snark)

Well, yes we already know that manufacturer's bear no responsibility for the use of their products. That's not really what I'm asking - what I'm wondering is if that's really the best idea? No controls whatsoever on who you sell something to, anything goes....

Clearly, the drone "menace" indicates that something isn't right. Just a huge number of totally unqualified people buying and flying them seems to be one of the biggest complaints out there. But there doesn't seem to be any thought given to how those drones got into the hands of those people.  

We have limits on who can use, or even buy, other types of products out there, or at the very least some vetting of a potential customer to see if they meet at least some minimum standard.

Im just asking why not something similar on the sale of drones to the public?

DJI have done it again.... and Wachtberger I am still waiting for a response to my message on their Facebook page. Maybe they are too busy with the launch of Mavic Air. Loved the first comment underneath the picture, just made me feel better that I am not the only one who notices these things.

Gunship9 Posted at 2018-1-19 10:00
Yes, I think they should watch what they post on their website.  Further more they should encourage a culture that promotes safe responsible flying.  Sadly, youtube clicks and instagram clicks require risky shots and videos that skirt or outright break laws.   

What do you think of this videoat 2:00?  His disregard of others by flying the Mavic around them ticked me off enough to write to my representatives to see if the FAA could do something to protect people from nuisance drone flying.  He could have hovered the drone out of the way until the few walkers and joggers passed. Or, flown it behind the beach, or over the water.  But nope, stitches on them don't hurt him much.  Or do we assume Mavics have never crashed or left their owners so safe flying is unnecessary?  

This beach should have just kept walking down the beach with her mangy dogs instead of harassing this guy who did not hover near her and her dogs. She and you are pain in the ass busybody's who can't mind your OWN friking business! Why don't you go find her and join PETA! You deserve each other!

Brambleman Posted at 2018-1-19 13:47
"Little storm in a tea cup" - I really like that

More like "Making Mountains out of Mole Hills, nah, make that out of Ant Hills!

The issue with your remark is you assume. You assume that Yiran An is an unprofessional irresponsible drone pilot and just took the shot without permission. Yes there are those drone users out there but it's not in your personal right or authority to decide that yourself. You act like DJI doesn't check this stuff either.

I just received a message from DJI Australia.

I am glad DJI understand my concern, a huge thumbs up to DJI!  Unfortunately some on this forum and on Facebook have not understood the issue or my stance. This was never about whether the shot of Sydney Harbour was taken illegally, the FACT is that drone flying in Sydney Harbour IS a problem and should be discouraged. I have never said that DJI are responsible for the acts of those that choose to fly their drones illegally, just that they have a role to play in discouraging drone law-breaking. I am not DRONEPOLICE as some have described me, I actually want less regulations for using drones but I don't think that will happen while we still have idiots who can't follow the rules that we do have. Thanks again to those that have responded to this thread with thoughtful intelligent comments,