This is a screen grab from the Go4 App as it relates to the Spark.

Could this be the largest restricted zone?

It has a diameter of approximately 68miles, or covers an area of approximately 3,630 square miles. Technically speaking it’s supposed to represent AIAA Vale of York but DJI’s representation of this zone is exaggerated to say the least. I believe this zone was originally implemented to encompass many of the airfields that were in operation in the East Ridings, but the majority of these were decommissioned in the 1950’s and 1960’s.


Whilst I in no way condone intentionally infringing the official restrictions enforced by the relevant Airspace Authorities it has to be said that DJI’s dreadfully innacurate NFZ database is a source of never ending frustration for us users. It wouldn’t be so bad if these restrictions were all the same across their product range but in reality the areas covered vary from model to model, i.e the ones used for the Spark are different for those used by the Phantom range. And don’t get me started on the issues concerning the Datalink system. It can be quite a PITA every time you attempt to take off a window pops up with text and a tick box, in a colour that is near impossible to read and acknowledge, before you can even spin the props.

As much as I love my little Spark I’m tending to use alternative craft more often just to negate the frustrations I encounter while trying to fly in areas deemed safe by everyone else but DJI.

Ranty Rant over.

Nidge.

I cant imagine having to drive miles away from your area to fly

As I can see there are a few restricted zones in this area, but there aren't any as huge as you show. Look at my screenshot from DJI restricted zone informatoin.

At present it doesn't reflect Canadian regulations of 3 nautical miles.

ssylca44 Posted at 2-3 11:18
At present it doesn't reflect Canadian regulations of 3 nautical miles.

Sounds preatty unfairly.

Lysak2003 Posted at 2-3 11:26
Sounds preatty unfairly.

Just not up to date with new regulations.

It depends what you mean by validity..... Can you sue and win against DJI in case you flew into some official NFZ and DJI software allowed you to do so.... than no, it's not valid. It's not even official. It's pretty much arbitrary, privately generated, sometimes non-sense and ultra frustrating database.

Lysak2003 Posted at 2-3 09:28
As I can see there are a few restricted zones in this area, but there aren't any as huge as you show. Look at my screenshot from DJI restricted zone informatoin.

This is another example demonstrating  the inconsistency of DJI’s NFZ across their various platforms.
There is a facility in this area that if you were to fly over it prosecution by the CAA would be the least of your worries, but DJI don’t have it in their database.

Below is the NFZ as it pertains to their Datalink/Groundstation, I have this installed on my medium lift hexacopter. Within this zone it’s not even possible to arm the model. It is 10miles across, or 79 square miles, and encompasses a number of CAA/BMFA registered model flying sites.

I bought the Datalink before DJI implemented their NFZ’s and it was a terrific piece of kit making survey work a doddle. Then overnight it became an expensive paperweight. I contacted DJI and expressed my concerns and they assured me that they were going to change the database to make it less restrictive. This was back at the beginning of 2014. Toward the end of last year I contacted them again to enquire if they could at least place the same restrictions as on the Mavic/Phantom range to the Datalink and their response was that they no longer support  it even though they still sell it. Other than a couple of Phantoms and the Spark I binned the DJI Naza and A2 flight controllers in my other craft in favour of the Pixhawk/APM flight controllers so that I could maintain waypoint and survey functionality.
Regards

Nidge.