I have attemepted to get support in reading the .DAT files that can be downloaded from my Mavic Air 2.  Less than an hour of flight produced a 1.8 gigabyte file that likely contains a lot of details about the drones operations but DJI will only tell you about them if you want them reviewed while under warrantee.  It would seem that if you spend over $1000.00 for such a drone kit that the manufacturer would want the user to be able to easily review the details about it's operation.  If something fails internally they don't want you to know what happens, especially after the warrantee expires.  What are they hiding?
Yes, I can use the .TXT files on my phone with another website or app to see where I have flown but no internal details about the operation.

I will not be recommending DJI drones to my friends that are interested for something in this price range.  DJI is hiding something from us.

You can read the .DAT recorded on the mobile device running the Go App. Not as comprehensive as the .DAT on the MA2 itself but pretty good. Try this software
CsvView Introduction
it's free and runs on your PC or Mac.

BudWalker Posted at 12-31 14:40
You can read the .DAT recorded on the mobile device running the Go App. Not as comprehensive as the .DAT on the MA2 itself but pretty good. Try this software
CsvView Introduction
it's free and runs on your PC or Mac.

I guess you didn't read the bright red print that stated: Note: The onboard .DAT for the Mavic Air, Mavic 2, Mavic Mini and Mavic Mini 2 is encrypted and can not be processed by either DatCon or CsvView.

It sounds like the data is simply encrypted, which is actually what you do want. Wide open unencrypted data on your aircraft's operation sitting around on the unit would allow snooping by all kinds of bad actors who might be able to access the file. Say in a flyaway or a hack of some sort , etc. So DJI is probably doing the right thing in that case...

That would be doing the right thing if they gave the customer the keys to decrypt the files on thier own drone.  They simply don't care which is a bad policy.
I did try the software and there was nothing extracted that could be used.

markeby Posted at 12-31 15:01
That would be doing the right thing if they gave the customer the keys to decrypt the files on thier own drone.  They simply don't care which is a bad policy.
I did try the software and there was nothing extracted that could be used.

' They simply don't care which is a bad policy.'

Actually, they don't want you to read them because they are there for DJI to use to determine whether a claim is due to a failure of the aircraft or a failure of the pilot. There is nothing to suggest that you have any right to view those files. Like almost all Chinese companies, DJI are not customer driven.

markeby Posted at 12-31 15:01
That would be doing the right thing if they gave the customer the keys to decrypt the files on thier own drone.  They simply don't care which is a bad policy.
I did try the software and there was nothing extracted that could be used.

I feel your frustration.  Onboard .DAT logs are most certainly more useful than logs transmitted to the Remote Control/connected device.  As they are susceptible to transmission and disconnection issues the logs are far better for analyzing a crash.

But then I think of the scenario in which your drone crashes or is seized for some reason by the police or courts.  

If the .DAT files were unencrypted anyone with the drone could view those flight logs and use them against you.  This would be especially problematic in civil suit where an insurance company or other plaintiff could scrutinize your entire flight history and establish a pattern of behavior even if that behavior was not relevant to the crash or suit.   Most of us who have flown a significant amount have at some point have violated an FAA regulation either intentionally or flagrantly.  The logs provide a third party the ability to argue that action you took was a questionable decision.

If there was a key to decrypt the files a court could compel you to provide the key or issue a subpoena for the key from DJI.  DJI would have to comply if they wanted to sell drones in that country.

The only thing I think DJI is hiding is the ability for a recovered drone to be used to demonstrate that an individual misused, was negligent and/or used the drone maliciously.  

I suspect that it's encrypted for warranty reasons, so that it can't be modified. The normal dat files are available but evidently not available after you sync; that data is added to the main dat file and encrypted to preserve it. The file you referenced includes all flights.

GaryDoug Posted at 12-31 15:55
I suspect that it's encrypted for warranty reasons, so that it can't be modified. The normal dat files are available but evidently not available after you sync; that data is added to the main dat file and encrypted to preserve it. The file you referenced includes all flights.

I believe that is the correct reason.

I agree that the main .DAT file is more than likely preserved for warrantee purposes.  But is made exclusive to DJI to preserve their ability to choose how they use the information.  In doing so it prevent pilots and the community challenging warrantee claims by having access to the same logs.

markeby Posted at 12-31 14:44
I guess you didn't read the bright red print that stated:  Note: The onboard .DAT for the Mavic Air, Mavic 2, Mavic Mini and Mavic Mini 2 is encrypted and can not be processed by either DatCon or CsvView.

Actually I did read it because I wrote it. That's my website you're quoting. And it says that the on board .DAT is encrypted. BUT, the .DAT on the mobile deviice is not.

What we really need, at least for Android, is a utility that runs in the background and frequently copies all the dat files to a safe location, preferably an SD card, so that we don't lose them to a sync. I don't know if that is possible to run an aftermarket app like that in iOS.

JohnLietzke Posted at 12-31 15:53
I feel your frustration.  Onboard .DAT logs are most certainly more useful than logs transmitted to the Remote Control/connected device.  As they are susceptible to transmission and disconnection issues the logs are far better for analyzing a crash.

But then I think of the scenario in which your drone crashes or is seized for some reason by the police or courts.  

I call B.S. to every reason given.   I can read all of the data in my car off of the OBS, even the airbag codes but I cannot modify them.  I own the car and have the right to access all of the data.

DJI is just being a typical Chinese company of which I will buy no further products and recommend them not to my friends due to this deceptive practice.  

markeby Posted at 2020-12-31 23:54
I call B.S. to every reason given.   I can read all of the data in my car off of the OBS, even the airbag codes but I cannot modify them.  I own the car and have the right to access all of the data.

DJI is just being a typical Chinese company of which I will buy no further products and recommend them not to my friends due to this deceptive practice.

It’s a new year and I’m not looking for an argument but what you say is somewhat true in your comparison with the automotive industry.
You can read codes and some data but not all. If you want to do that it comes at a price.
Even to read codes you would need to purchase or borrow the OBDII code reader.

That said, DJI doesn’t have to provide data for you to read. What they can do, f they desire, is sell you the "tool" needed to read the files.
I'm not trying to change your point of view just providing information.

markeby Posted at 2020-12-31 23:54
I call B.S. to every reason given.   I can read all of the data in my car off of the OBS, even the airbag codes but I cannot modify them.  I own the car and have the right to access all of the data.

DJI is just being a typical Chinese company of which I will buy no further products and recommend them not to my friends due to this deceptive practice.

"I can read all of the data in my car off of the OBS"

That is because of a government mandate in the USA that goes back to 1996. It's called OBD2 and requires the information to be available to the public due to EPA requirements. Otherwise the US car manufacturers would never allow it either.

And by the way, you do not have a right to "all the data", only certain parameters. The rest is proprietary and limited to those service companies that can afford the expensive licensing fees. The maker of any legal scantool you may use has paid those fees.

GaryDoug Posted at 1-1 06:08
"I can read all of the data in my car off of the OBS"

That is because of a government mandate in the USA that goes back to 1996. It's called OBD2 and requires the information to be available to the public due to EPA requirements. Otherwise the US car manufacturers would never allow it either.

This is true, it was forced not of their own free will.
OBDII is the standard protocol that all manufacturers have to use if sold in the US.
Its information is limited and only what they have to provide.

markeby Posted at 2020-12-31 23:54
I call B.S. to every reason given.   I can read all of the data in my car off of the OBS, even the airbag codes but I cannot modify them.  I own the car and have the right to access all of the data.

DJI is just being a typical Chinese company of which I will buy no further products and recommend them not to my friends due to this deceptive practice.

That's what we get when we demand unregulated Free Enterprise. You're not actually as "free" as you think .

It's kind of like typical commodity software: when you "buy" a piece of software as a regular user, all you've done is pay for the privilege of using it. You don't actually "own" it - the SW company still maintains ownership of the IP and you never get access to any proprietary source code. The company determines what you get access to and what you don't.

These log files are probably similar to that, and contain proprietary info of DJI. As for us, we kinda own the aircraft and we kinda don't. The pieces of hardware are kind of "ours", but there's IP inside that we don't really own and DJI can kind of do what it wants with it.....

markeby Posted at 2020-12-31 23:54
I call B.S. to every reason given.   I can read all of the data in my car off of the OBS, even the airbag codes but I cannot modify them.  I own the car and have the right to access all of the data.

DJI is just being a typical Chinese company of which I will buy no further products and recommend them not to my friends due to this deceptive practice.

Your entitled to your opinion.  I personally, would rather sacrifice access to flight data from the drone to prevent that data from being used against me.  To me, limiting my own liability outweighs the loss of detailed data access on the drone.

ODBII is a protocol, as mentioned by others, that was mandated to allow owners to do diagnostics and repairs at a relatively low cost in response to a suit pertaining to the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.  The basis for the suit had to due with monopolistic, cartel and exclusionary practices which the automotive industry engaged in by controlling and limiting who could access the data.  Ultimately, it forced consumers to go to a select group of service providers to access digital data for diagnostics.  Thus, it was anticompetitive activity and collision to exclude other providers and the consumer from making repairs.  

The argument comparison to ODBII is moot as DJI does not allow access to the data outside the scope of the company.

I was simply trying to provide the benefits to the pilot if some unfortunate incident or an act of poor judgement were to occur.  

Insurance companies are using ODBII to offer safe driver discounts and other such cost saving benefits but that comes with a risk/reward as that data can be used against you even if it does not result in accidents or claim.  The data can be shared between insurance companies and used to raise the base rates as the user of the OBDII tracker consented and took an action to implement the savings service this negates the legal argument of sharing data as it is stipulated in consent agreement.

If I were at the helm of DJI I would take a similar approach as they have done.  Detailed documentation of every drone flight will ultimately lead to more documented incidents of misuse and regulatory violations which has a negative impact on both DJI as a company and the consumer drone industry as a whole.

The EPA drove the OBD2 requirements. Just check any government documents regarding that, such as the 1995 Final Rule under 40474 Federal register Vol. 60, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations. There is a lot of information available from the OBD2 requirements that is rarely used or even generally known. Note that parameters not related to engine emissions are not mandated or available. The SAE produced the guidlines and specifications required. All foreign vehicles sold in the USA without a waver must comply. Notice the published date, Pearl Harbor Day. Coincidence ... maybe ;-)

Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines; Regulations Requiring Availability of Information for Use of On-Board Diagnostic Systems and Emission-Related Repairs on 1994 and later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty Trucks
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This final rule establishes requirements for the availability of emission-related service information for all light-duty vehicles (LDVs) and light-duty trucks (LDTs) beginning with the 1994 model year (MY). Section 202(m)(5) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires EPA to promulgate rules mandating the availability of emission related service information for such vehicles. This rule making requires vehicle manufacturers to provide to the service and repair industry information necessary to service on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems and to perform other emission-related diagnosis and repair.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective December 7, 1995.

GaryDoug Posted at 1-1 13:34
The EPA drove the OBD2 requirements. Just check any government documents regarding that, such as the 1995 Final Rule under 40474 Federal register Vol. 60, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 9, 1995 / Rules and Regulations. There is a lot of information available from the OBD2 requirements that is rarely used or even generally known. Note that parameters not related to engine emissions are not mandated or available. The SAE produced the guidlines and specifications required. All foreign vehicles sold in the USA without a waver must comply. Notice the published date, Pearl Harbor Day. Coincidence ... maybe ;-)

Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines; Regulations Requiring Availability of Information for Use of On-Board Diagnostic Systems and Emission-Related Repairs on 1994 and later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty Trucks

Gary, were you in the automotive industry.   I believe you mentioned it before.  That is a great synopsis of the EPA CAA time table for the service and repair industry with the STAR system, if I remember correctly, which was the emission testing standard developed in California.

Manufactures then began using the port for all sorts of diagnostics in mass using the SAE protocol and found themselves in a stick situation by creating a barrier to entry with proprietary diagnostic tools and using base level encryption and limiting the scope of the dissemination of the diagnostic codes translation.  The ability to get the diagnostic tools was tightly controlled and expensive.

I know this off topic but would you off the top of your head know about ECU unlocks for tuning?  Some Mercedes require an ECU unlock which requires modifying or replacing the board.  Is that still the case?

BudWalker Posted at 2020-12-31 17:19
Actually I did read it because I wrote it. That's my website you're quoting. And it says that the on board .DAT is encrypted. BUT, the .DAT on the mobile deviice is not.

BudWalker, I just wanted to thank you for DatCon and CsvView both are incredibly helpful and intuitive to use.  

To believe that the data cannot be used against you is a completely false assumption.  There is nothing preventing the codes to unlock that data to be supplied to anyone by the manufacturer.  If you have the key yourself and the ability to change it, you have a better chance that the data won't be used against you.  Maybe that automotive device wasn't a good analogy due to the levels of regulations by governmental authority.

Nothing goes onto my computer without my authorization.   I have a hard drive that is encrypted and if there is any attempt or I am asked for the key to unlock it, I have a piece of code that will change the key to a random 136+ character key so that nobody has access to any data that might be use for or against me.  It is my hardware and I have control as to how it is used and what is on it.  The data on that drone is not regulated so the manufacturer just decides that the customer doesn't need access to it.

By not supplying the key to the customer with has ability to update it, is a disservice to the customer and it is clear that DJI just doesn't care.

JohnLietzke Posted at 1-1 15:19
Gary, were you in the automotive industry.   I believe you mentioned it before.  That is a great synopsis of the EPA CAA time table for the service and repair industry with the STAR system, if I remember correctly, which was the emission testing standard developed in California.

Manufactures then began using the port for all sorts of diagnostics in mass using the SAE protocol and found themselves in a stick situation by creating a barrier to entry with proprietary diagnostic tools and using base level encryption and limiting the scope of the dissemination of the diagnostic codes translation.  The ability to get the diagnostic tools was tightly controlled and expensive.

I was not in the automotive industry. But I did write some scanning software for select GM cars that are not well supported (too late for flash indication and too early for OBD2. One of mine (illegal from GM perspective I am sure) is used worldwide and recognized as the best, especially for free ;-) I am also a member of many automotive (and boating) forums, for many years.

I have not dealt much with the unlocking for tuning purposes but all the ECM/PCM's I know about are unlocked with software only. I suspect that just buying a new un-programmed PCM does get you the same result but is not re-programmable. I do know that if you "brick" a GM PCM, you can either replace it or replace the PLCC memory chip, no other choices.

As for diagnostic tools, the pet device for GM shops was from 1990-2015 the Tech II handheld which sold for at least $6k. Now you can get a fully functional Tech II clone from China for about $250. Nothing mysterious about it, just illegal to make a copy....for a while anyway ;-)

BudWalker Posted at 2020-12-31 17:19
Actually I did read it because I wrote it. That's my website you're quoting. And it says that the on board .DAT is encrypted. BUT, the .DAT on the mobile deviice is not.

Thank you very much for your valuable work...from a fellow coder. Sometimes it is necessary to maintain some anonymity; I can identify with that ;-)

GaryDoug Posted at 1-1 19:58
Thank you very much for your valuable work...from a fellow coder. Sometimes it is necessary to maintain some anonymity; I can identify with that ;-)

Well with the Mini 2 the DAT file on the mobile device is also encrypted.

Also from DJIFly App V1.2.2 they have also encrypted the TXT flight logs.  

grahamjohnson10 Posted at 1-2 12:51
Well with the Mini 2 the DAT file on the mobile device is also encrypted.

Also from DJIFly App V1.2.2 they have also encrypted the TXT flight logs.

JJB mentioned that a couple of days ago that the TXT logs were not working with the new DJI Fly app for the Mavic Air 2.  It will be interesting to see what DJI will do with the logs.

You have a good point. We should be about to view these files or at the very least have the pass code to these encrypted files. I'm glad I read your comments