Hello,

I found out that it will be probably possible to get a new CE mark for our Mavic Air 2 in Europe. Polish aviation authority posted an article where we can read that it'll be possible for old drones to get retrospectively certified. EASA describes two options for doing that: software update and sending new mark to users by DJI or hardware modernization by the manufacturer (probably for older drones which do not meet the requirements). So I assume our MA2s will be able to get a new mark by the first option? It's big news if true.

Article is in polish (but you can easy use translator) and the image describing the granting of certification is in English:

https://www.ulc.gov.pl/pl/aktual ... odnych-z-normami-ue

Enjoy

That's what i expect and maybe DJI did their Job already by sending everything to the EASA, but only due to the corona delay, the EASA did not post the official result yet.

If this is true its going to make it impossible for the authorities to check peoples drones when they are out flying.

DAFlys Posted at 10-25 03:21
If this is true its going to make it impossible for the authorities to check peoples drones when they are out flying.

What's the difference? It sounds like only the arrogant "no retrospective certification" rule is changed...

virtual Posted at 10-25 04:04
What's the difference? It sounds like only the arrogant "no retrospective certification" rule is changed...

Previoulsy they had to be marked from the factory so that they could be identified,  if its retrospective there's no easy at a glance way to tell,  so they probably won't even try and enforce it,

Why? There will be very likely a short list of legacy drones that meet required specification (and can be used after transitional period legally).

That would be great news indeed.

Fingers crossed!

DAFlys Posted at 10-25 04:32
Previoulsy they had to be marked from the factory so that they could be identified,  if its retrospective there's no easy at a glance way to tell,  so they probably won't even try and enforce it,

I'm guessing they could send out stickers.... but really, this whole idea is utterly pointless... You could get fake stickers; and the police won't know the difference between the new CE numeric classification and the existing CE mark already on the drones. anyway...  A simple sub 250gm / sub 1Kg classification would have been way easier to manage and made way more sense...

Be interesting if the UK CAA follow suit as they've repeatedly said they will not allow retrospective classification...

Ian in London Posted at 10-25 11:41
I'm guessing they could send out stickers.... but really, this whole idea is utterly pointless... You could get fake stickers; and the police won't know the difference between the new CE numeric classification and the existing CE mark already on the drones. anyway...  A simple sub 250gm / sub 1Kg classification would have been way easier to manage and made way more sense...

Be interesting if the UK CAA follow suit as they've repeatedly said they will not allow retrospective classification...

There are going to be fake stickers regardless Im sure.   Didnt the UK CAA also say they would align with the EU on the rules too.

I would be very surprised, if dji have not been working on this already, if you look at the specks for the Mini 2 and  Air2 they look like they have been made to fit into Mini 2 - C0 and Air 2 - C1 ?

I thought the FCC was restrictive until I got into drones.  The FCC is my favorite government agency in the US now.   

Europe and EU is going crazy with over regulation that has no perceivable benefit to the people and only makes mobile devices less effective.

DAFly & Ian in London hit the nail on the head with the fake sticker comment.  

It is stupid to retroactively implement a policy.  I think DJI will just decrease the dB signal level in the app like it does now with FCC to CE to meet the new requirements.  I saw a comment from a user in India on another forum that said the height was restricted in the apps geofencing for the country to 30m now to comply with India's new regulations.  

JohnLietzke Posted at 11-17 22:00
I thought the FCC was restrictive until I got into drones.  The FCC is my favorite government agency in the US now.   

Europe and EU is going crazy with over regulation that has no perceivable benefit to the people and only makes mobile devices less effective.

Yes indeed - EU is overregulation! It seems they want discourage use of drones.
I even think they frustrated DJI who seriously designed the Mavic 2 Pro/Zoom to fall in A1, but then the rules were changed (max 900 grams, where Mavic 2's are 903/907 g)

Dear DJI,
Please please make an EU version of the firmware of MAVIC 2: limit the speed to 13 m / s so the impact energy is less than 80 J and the Mavic 2 Pro and Zoom have an impact energy < 80 J, so they can fall in A1! It will boost the sales of the Mavic 2, I am sure!
PLEASE

TinusvdW Posted at 11-18 00:22
Yes indeed - EU is overregulation! It seems they want discourage use of drones.
I even think they frustrated DJI who seriously designed the Mavic 2 Pro/Zoom to fall in A1, but then the rules were changed (max 900 grams, where Mavic 2's are 903/907 g)

Our main regulation is weight and a loosely enforced VLOS, we have no speed cap which a consumer drone possibly exceed at this time. The  FAA weight range seems to be static and we are seeing more drone friendly regulations at the State and Federal level but local cities in certain places are the one who are trying to implement a tactical ordnance effort to make no fly zones.  

There are several Federal lawsuits which have set precedence that the FAA has sole jurisdiction over airspace.  At the state level, in government heavy California, there were several pieces of drone legislation pass that were practical.  Such as, it is illegal to intentionally attempt to capture a person in private lawful activity for gain, no fly zones over jails and prisons, and state parks have drone flying restrictions.  But the resolution is most often than not a simple conversation about the law and not action or arrest.  Unless someone is doing something illegal and extremely dangerous my experience has been that law enforcement simply want you to cease.  From the videos on line I have seen, which mostly appear to anti-police agenda oriented, the operator escalates the situation to a point where it is reasonable for law enforcement to elect to use legal methods rather verbal remedy.  More often than not in those videos the operator is outwardly hostile, a legal eagle who is wrong and continues to argue or is recalcitrant.

Are the EU countries actually enforcing the laws or are they a matter of self compliance?

Our trend at the State and Federal level seems to be in contrast with the EU's philosophy of greater government intervention.  My big complaint about Europe is the EU seems to be tripping slowly towards a socialist controlling government.  

I have Mavic Air 2 which weighs roughly 500g and meets the A1 standard.  That is one of the reasons I choose it for travel.  Retroactively changing the the classifications is a poor longterm strategy and it appears that the EU picked 900g instead of an even 1000g to include some of the most popular drones at the time of creating the legislation.

TinusvdW Posted at 11-18 00:26
Dear DJI,
Please please make an EU version of the firmware of MAVIC 2: limit the speed to 13 m / s so the impact energy is less than 80 J and the Mavic 2 Pro and Zoom have an impact energy < 80 J, so they can fall in A1! It will boost the sales of the Mavic 2, I am sure!
PLEASE

At least DJI could set the P/Normal mode to meet the EU requirements and leave to Sport mode alone.

JohnLietzke Posted at 11-18 09:20
Our main regulation is weight and a loosely enforced VLOS, we have no speed cap which a consumer drone possibly exceed at this time. The  FAA weight range seems to be static and we are seeing more drone friendly regulations at the State and Federal level but local cities in certain places are the one who are trying to implement a tactical ordnance effort to make no fly zones.  

There are several Federal lawsuits which have set precedence that the FAA has sole jurisdiction over airspace.  At the state level, in government heavy California, there were several pieces of drone legislation pass that were practical.  Such as, it is illegal to intentionally attempt to capture a person in private lawful activity for gain, no fly zones over jails and prisons, and state parks have drone flying restrictions.  But the resolution is most often than not a simple conversation about the law and not action or arrest.  Unless someone is doing something illegal and extremely dangerous my experience has been that law enforcement simply want you to cease.  From the videos on line I have seen, which mostly appear to anti-police agenda oriented, the operator escalates the situation to a point where it is reasonable for law enforcement to elect to use legal methods rather verbal remedy.  More often than not in those videos the operator is outwardly hostile, a legal eagle who is wrong and continues to argue or is recalcitrant.

My big complaint about Europe is the EU seems to be tripping slowly towards a socialist controlling government.

Even many people in Europe feel the same...

virtual Posted at 11-18 09:38
My big complaint about Europe is the EU seems to be tripping slowly towards a socialist controlling government.

Even many people in Europe feel the same...

That is not we are told in the UK everyday, we are told everyone loves it in the EU ?

FireStorm-X Posted at 11-18 10:08
That is not we are told in the UK everyday, we are told everyone loves it in the EU ?

The regulations in the EU seem to be contrary but the UK might do it's own thing.  Hopefully, the UK takes the FAA approach that the more restrictive the regulations the more serious the problems that arise from people circumventing them.

Under a scenario where regulation is extreme, people start building and modifying their drones to be in compliance and what ultimately occurs is a lot more experimental and dangerous drones flying overhead.    Kind of like with RC planes and helicopters the number of crashes due to faulty equipment is very high.   The potential for damage to property or injuries increases which is an unforeseen consequence of the regulations.  

FireStorm-X Posted at 11-18 10:08
That is not we are told in the UK everyday, we are told everyone loves it in the EU ?

There are people that remember East block style of government of incompetente bureaucrats and they find a lot of similarities. EASA implementation of new rules is great (and very sad) example...

Be careful with the updating you do. Once you have your drone flying as you like it. I would not update things as this is the only way DJI can get in restrictions..........

I actually have separate Phones (old Iphone 6s Plus mainly) on each of my drones. This way once I have a drone that is stable in the app and does all I want I leave it well alone.

If I buy a new drone as I have just bought the Mini 2 I get a new Iphone 6s Plus...... Bit costly I know but worth it for me

virtual Posted at 11-18 09:38
My big complaint about Europe is the EU seems to be tripping slowly towards a socialist controlling government.

Even many people in Europe feel the same...

You are right about what you wrote. I have a similar view of the EU's conduct.

DAFlys Posted at 10-25 03:21
If this is true its going to make it impossible for the authorities to check peoples drones when they are out flying.

Manufacturers have always been able to falsely mark any product with any of the CE certifications there are it is illegal though. And you and I as a customer have always been able to do that as well, still being illegal.

You would at least find some product being announced as being illegally marked with a CE certification either by google or by going to your country customer right website (assumingly).

You as a customer may check if it actually is verified/certified, it may be cumbersume to do so.

A manufacturer like DJI will not be marking products falsely, and those persons that actually are be in the position to check if your drone are certified/Cx class marking/ (when you are out flying) will have the knowledge of the specified product actually have a Cx class certification regardless of the actual presence of a Cx class marking on the drone. (Note: I am not saying that the drone will not need/or will not have/ a Cx marking. I am saying that the Cx marking is of more use for you when buying a drone rather than for anyone officials inspecting your drone when you are out flying.)

The identification of whom the drone belongs to is not done by the actual Cx marking it self.

Mailliw_Sirrom Posted at 11-25 01:30
Manufacturers have always been able to falsely mark any product with any of the CE certifications there are it is illegal though. And you and I as a customer have always been able to do that as well, still being illegal.

You would at least find some product being announced as being illegally marked with a CE certification either by google or by going to your country customer right website (assumingly).

I think you mis understood me,  if they allow retrospective certification, it will require a firmware update to the drone to make it fall into one of the categories and then without markings will make it very difficult for it to simply be checked by the authorities.

DAFlys Posted at 11-25 01:44
I think you mis understood me,  if they allow retrospective certification, it will require a firmware update to the drone to make it fall into one of the categories and then without markings will make it very difficult for it to simply be checked by the authorities.

No i did not miss understand you, although I may have gone out a bit on my reply. And I also understand that when you first wrote "impossible" you would mean "very difficult" (as your follow up with).

Anyone inspecting a drone without any actuall knowledge to do so would have it very difficult or even impossible to do it. Do not let that "agitated" person that are coming up to you to inspect your drone Cx marking to actually do the inspection, even if they are pretending to know (but actually do not know), it is not their job.

The mileage may vary of course, but any officials doing an inspecting will have the knowledge of if the drone have a Cx certification (even if it is retrospectively certified) regardless of the actuall presence of a Cx mark, a mark may help and may make it easier to inspect of course. (Then there are that one person inspecting that should have but do not have the knowledge needed.) And for instance the remote ID would be telling/or hinting/ if the drone have the updated firmware needed.

I believe we would be able to trust that those that would be in the position to officially inspect a drone in the field will know how to do it in a fashionable manner, as per whatever a fashionable manner actually means in each case .

Mailliw_Sirrom Posted at 11-25 02:07
No i did not miss understand you, although I may have gone out a bit on my reply. And I also understand that when you first wrote "impossible" you would mean "very difficult" (as your follow up with).

Anyone inspecting a drone without any actuall knowledge to do so would have it very difficult or even impossible to do it. Do not let that "agitated" person that are coming up to you to inspect your drone Cx marking to actually do the inspection, even if they are pretending to know (but actually do not know), it is not their job.

Except they wouldn't be able to visible tell,  they would have to check the firmware installed and even then if the drone had a custom firmware it could appear to be correct but still not be.

DAFlys Posted at 11-25 02:19
Except they wouldn't be able to visible tell,  they would have to check the firmware installed and even then if the drone had a custom firmware it could appear to be correct but still not be.

I had it in my head but did not write it.

I would speculate that if it would be "very difficult" or "impossible" to verify a retrospectively certified product  that product will not receive a certification retrospective.
I can not judge though if inspecting firmware is difficult or not, but a custom firmware may been done in a way that it would not be detected easely and all cases can not be accounted for I assume. For instance a drone that in the future are released with a certification may also be changed by the user conceringn firmware and perhaps by then not comply to the certification, although in the certification there are parts that the user should not be able to change.

Mailliw_Sirrom Posted at 11-25 02:28
I had it in my head but did not write it.

I would speculate that if it would be "very difficult" or "impossible" to verify a retrospectively certified product  that product will not receive a certification retrospective.

Exactly my point.

DAFlys Posted at 11-25 02:29
Exactly my point.

I added some text above.

Either way we are talking about something positive if the Mavic Air 2 will receive a post launch certification.

We should really shuffle the headaches towards the authorities, but discussing things are also fun and intriguing.

Mailliw_Sirrom Posted at 11-25 02:37
I added some text above.

Either way we are talking about something positive if the Mavic Air 2 will receive a post launch certification.

Some new information on the subject- https://www.heliguy.com/blog/202 ... e-ce-class-marking/

I think that the retrospective marking IS going to happen and the drone of choice will likely be the Mavic Air 2 in the 1st instance. To be honest I'm not waiting around as I'm literally about to pay the money to do the A2 CofC course (£99) which will last me at least x 2 years by which time this will all be resolved or the Mavic Air 3 will be out  (and fully complaint) so either way I'm covered.  I know the Mini 2 is amazing BUT the lack of active track / HDR / spotlight (which is really important to me)  etc makes this an impossible purchase for me. I know its all a bit of a pain but then part of me thinks that actually taking the qualification is actually not a bad thing. Now believe me, it IS annoying having to pay out but if I'm being really, really honest  - and although I am really careful when I fly - would a course like this be beneficial to me, probably yes and I suspect help me be more aware. Also, not sure if this has been posted earlier but this is a great video on YouTube that goes into all of this as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gngaB6nFlLM

Mailliw_Sirrom Posted at 2020-11-25 02:07
No i did not miss understand you, although I may have gone out a bit on my reply. And I also understand that when you first wrote "impossible" you would mean "very difficult" (as your follow up with).

Anyone inspecting a drone without any actuall knowledge to do so would have it very difficult or even impossible to do it. Do not let that "agitated" person that are coming up to you to inspect your drone Cx marking to actually do the inspection, even if they are pretending to know (but actually do not know), it is not their job.

I can just imagine flying around 'residential and recreational' areas that the CAA bang on about, and having a policeman come up to me asking to see my 'license'! "Here you go officer, here's my flyer's ID."

steve35 Posted at 2020-11-27 07:35
I think that the retrospective marking IS going to happen and the drone of choice will likely be the Mavic Air 2 in the 1st instance. To be honest I'm not waiting around as I'm literally about to pay the money to do the A2 CofC course (£99) which will last me at least x 2 years by which time this will all be resolved or the Mavic Air 3 will be out  (and fully complaint) so either way I'm covered.  I know the Mini 2 is amazing BUT the lack of active track / HDR / spotlight (which is really important to me)  etc makes this an impossible purchase for me. I know its all a bit of a pain but then part of me thinks that actually taking the qualification is actually not a bad thing. Now believe me, it IS annoying having to pay out but if I'm being really, really honest  - and although I am really careful when I fly - would a course like this be beneficial to me, probably yes and I suspect help me be more aware. Also, not sure if this has been posted earlier but this is a great video on YouTube that goes into all of this as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gngaB6nFlLM

This was my thinking. Went for the Air 2 instead of the Mini 2 because of the autonomous flight mode advanatges. How likely is it that I'll be accosted by the police, who won't be able to do anything because they won't know what they're talking about? Seems pretty low, especially living in the countryside. I'm contemplating the course, but I'm not sure if it's worth it if I'll only get a year and a half out of it - unless the CAA get their sh*t together. Fingers crossed!

Something to think about.
A brand new DJI FPV ...no Cx mark...
It seems that the new MA2s also has no Cx mark.
Probably DJI is ready but the ? official EU control organism is not ready to produce the Cx mark.
So it's unbelievable that new 2021 drones are falling in A1/A3 starting 2023...
I can't believe this. So I'm still hoping for my MA2.

That's why i will not buy any new drone from any of the manufacturer until it has a Cx marking.