range tests? If by any chance such a you tuber had been the recipient of free drones for testing would that you tuber continue to recieve free drones?
Just wondering,

Publicly DJI will never condone such a thing.......but lets put the cards on the table here, Drone Connection Range defines how poplular that drone will turn out to be & this equates to sale figures, if a drone has a tested range of  over 5km between controller & drone & still can be controlled reliably then this makes for a poplular drone, people will always be fascinated by flying beyond VLOS & this has always been the case, hence the viewing figures on Youtube, why risk your own Mavic 3 & fly 10km away when you can let someone do all the hard work on Youtube, at least you will know then your same model drone is then capable of the same, DJI know this, & thats why the make a fortune from drones that fly LONG ranges.

Tony64 Posted at 1-1 13:33
Publicly DJI will never condone such a thing.......but lets put the cards on the table here, Drone Connection Range defines how poplular that drone will turn out to be & this equates to sale figures, if a drone has a tested range of  over 5km between controller & drone & still can be controlled reliably then this makes for a poplular drone, people will always be fascinated by flying beyond VLOS & this has always been the case, hence the viewing figures on Youtube, why risk your own Mavic 3 & fly 10km away when you can let someone do all the hard work on Youtube, at least you will know then your same model drone is then capable of the same, DJI know this, & thats why the make a fortune from drones that fly LONG ranges.

Cards on the table are welcome,
Undoubtably true but I can but wonder if ultimately it will lead to the legal requirement for manufacturers to limit the range, i.e. be a rod for their own back ,,,,and ours.
And no I am not innocent here but a malfunction would send my drone for a deep water swim in the sea and I do not post videos of it,

This is a question for FAA enforcement. They have limited manpower and no real methodology for monitoring the situation on YouTube or other sites. The above post on DJI's position is correct. There is no upside for them to hinder or question these reviewers or posts.

This type of behavior, when published by a Part 107 pilot, is a problem for all of us who follow the rules and guidelines with the exception of an emergent situation (life or death rescue, etc.). If that happens, the pilot needs to be able to explain the situation, process, risk analysis, etc. of their decision to the FAA or DOT should and accident or injury occur.

Once Remote ID is a requirement be it on new aircraft or retrofitted on an older unit, it will offer the FAA the ability to review information on any flights that might get posted on social media (and other sites) should they feel it is necessary.

I'll certainly state the fact that many will feel this is overreach by the FAA, big government, etc. but that is not my point. The pilots that publish flagrant rules violations (with the wink and laugh that usually is included or the "can you see the aircraft at 5 miles, yep no problem, ha ha) will be opening themselves up to FAA review.

Any Part 107 pilot that has a business and/or is an "influencer" would be taking on a significant risk.

So, down the road, I suspect that only "hobbyists" will be publishing these types "range tests" or talking about how they were flying at 2500 feet ASL and above.

I wouldn't risk it...

My 2 cents only.

The laws and regulations will vary based on jurisdiction.  I surmise that DJI's position is that their responsibility includes (and ends with) regulations specific to product requirements and behavior, and that they leave it it the local jurisdictions to enforce regulations related to pilot requirements and behavior.

They probably do not view flying BVLOS within their model to condone or condemn.

Drone Police incoming

we all know the rules on vlos will be changing soon and this will all be a moot point.  it's just a matter of time.

Enlighten me please, why moot and what are the, presumably USA, changes?
I realise FAA rule are applicable to USA territory and not Europe nor other parts of the world but I am curious.

Hello there. Good day and thank you for reaching out. DJI always highly recommend to follow the rules and regulations when flying your DJI Drones to avoid an untoward incidents. Thank you and have a safe flight always.  

EFRPIC Posted at 1-1 14:33
This is a question for FAA enforcement. They have limited manpower and no real methodology for monitoring the situation on YouTube or other sites. The above post on DJI's position is correct. There is no upside for them to hinder or question these reviewers or posts.

This type of behavior, when published by a Part 107 pilot, is a problem for all of us who follow the rules and guidelines with the exception of an emergent situation (life or death rescue, etc.). If that happens, the pilot needs to be able to explain the situation, process, risk analysis, etc. of their decision to the FAA or DOT should and accident or injury occur.

Is this thread referring to a popular youtuber who did a range test in a NJ Shore town?

No it is not, why do you ask?
Ahh are you by any chance referring to the thread that was recently started on MavicPilots about a possible matching video? It does seem to be recieving a fair amount of flak.

Sean-bumble-bee Posted at 1-1 18:07
Enlighten me please, why moot and what are the, presumably USA, changes?
I realise FAA rule are applicable to USA territory and not Europe nor other parts of the world but I am curious.

i dunno, you think google, fedex, ups, and amazon are going to have spotters with eyes on every drone they fly?  the "rule" is already being ignored...by everyone.  there's nothing to "condone."

just keeping it real.
eta:  just so you know what i'm saying...this rule that says regardless of the technology, regardless of the safety records, or the facts....when you fly a drone, a set of human eyes must watch that drone at all times linked to the whomever is controller the drone, not a computer or anything else.  i'm saying i believe that idea will be ancient history very shortly.

I do not know what those companies will be doing and yes, I do wonder how they will comply with the law but I would also bet they will be legal, it would surely be financial suicide for them not to be.

In the US, use of drones for delivery is covered by a pilot program for which I believe FAA has authority to govern and regulate separately from general rules and regulations.  Which (if I am right, a big if) grants FAA to regulate the pilot programs entirely differently from the regulations we are use to.  It is possible that at the conclusion of the pilot program, FAA will create a separate category of operations for deliveries, and that we will still have VLOS regulations to abide by.

While I don't judge other pilot's choices, I always encourage new pilots to follow the regs, including VLOS.  Mainly because should any of the systems fail (GPS, compass), then the pilot and mother nature are teaming up to navigate the craft.  And if it is BVLOS, then its all mother nature.

Oh I couldn't possibly guess which YouTube that would be

DAFlys Posted at 1-2 01:51
Oh I couldn't possibly guess which YouTube that would be

LOL!  I know right?  

I feel like this whole thing could have been avoided.  

Sean-bumble-bee Posted at 1-1 21:41
I do not know what those companies will be doing and yes, I do wonder how they will comply with the law but I would also bet they will be legal, it would surely be financial suicide for them not to be.

In Europe they are already developing U-space which will be for commercial drones, it has been in development for over 4 years under EASA . Airspace above 400ft below 500ft is the space being developed. When we will see it go fully ahead is anybodys guess.

TonyPHX Posted at 1-2 10:14
LOL!  I know right?  

I feel like this whole thing could have been avoided.

Some say that video was posted without his consent,    or at least thats the excuse I can hear coming.

DAFlys Posted at 1-3 01:38
Some say that video was posted without his consent,    or at least thats the excuse I can hear coming.

The operating term is FAAFO.  F around, and Find Out.  

TonyPHX Posted at 1-3 08:24
The operating term is FAAFO.  F around, and Find Out.

Never heard that one before.   cheers.

So far DJI never did. (that I know off)

Since it was discussed in this thread I am curious, what did happen to the "range test in a NJ Shore town" video, I was occasionally checking it to see what comments it was getting and it has been made private, was there too much flak?

Sean-bumble-bee Posted at 1-1 18:07
Enlighten me please, why moot and what are the, presumably USA, changes?
I realise FAA rule are applicable to USA territory and not Europe nor other parts of the world but I am curious.

Doesn't know what he is talking about!!!!!

i think this will be more common in the future; definitely a small step in the right direction:  

The Saint Posted at 1-1 17:59
we all know the rules on vlos will be changing soon and this will all be a moot point.  it's just a matter of time.

relevant topic for today.  seems we are getting close although probably still a year or two away.  the bottom line is claiming that flying bvlos is unsafe is not entirely accurate.  there is no data that supports this and as far as i have seen, there is no correlation between waivers given and accidents or near collisions etc.  i understand it's all about risk but there's a heavy dose of "safety" thrown in to cloud the judgment.

look, we all have to obey the rules as long as there are rules and the day they no longer become the rules, everybody forgets why they are rules in the first place.  i remember when it was unsafe for recreational pilots to fly in controlled airspace...until laanc came along. nobody will claim that flying bvlos is unsafe once the rules are lifted....and when the "important" people want to fly "seriously" but don't want to follow the "silly" rules then the rules will be changed...for them; but not for us.  i haven't yet read the full details (other than the highlights) but i bet you will never be able to fly bvlos without jumping over some irrelevant hurdle or thru hoops that are designed to allow it for some and not for others since it will never be simply lifted with no strings.  the rules won't apply to everyone.  and recreational flyers will be left out, as usual.

The Saint Posted at 3-11 10:17
relevant topic for today.  seems we are getting close although probably still a year or two away.  the bottom line is claiming that flying bvlos is unsafe is not entirely accurate.  there is no data that supports this and as far as i have seen, there is no correlation between waivers given and accidents or near collisions etc.  i understand it's all about risk but there's a heavy dose of "safety" thrown in to cloud the judgment.

look, we all have to obey the rules as long as there are rules and the day they no longer become the rules, everybody forgets why they are rules in the first place.  i remember when it was unsafe for recreational pilots to fly in controlled airspace...until laanc came along. nobody will claim that flying bvlos is unsafe once the rules are lifted....and when the "important" people want to fly "seriously" but don't want to follow the "silly" rules then the rules will be changed...for them; but not for us.  i haven't yet read the full details (other than the highlights) but i bet you will never be able to fly bvlos without jumping over some irrelevant hurdle or thru hoops that are designed to allow it for some and not for others since it will never be simply lifted with no strings.  the rules won't apply to everyone.  and recreational flyers will be left out, as usual.

I don't critique the flight and piloting choices that other drone peers make (unless their choices violate rules and they do so in some hyper-public manner such as national television).  I don't claim to follow every rule every time perfectly when I fly.  I would appreciate the relaxation of VLOS regulations.  However I will say that new pilots are best served by following this rule.

Sean-bumble-bee Posted at 1-1 13:46
Cards on the table are welcome,
Undoubtably true but I can but wonder if ultimately it will lead to the legal requirement for manufacturers to limit the range, i.e. be a rod for their own back ,,,,and ours.
And no I am not innocent here but a malfunction would send my drone for a deep water swim in the sea and I do not post videos of it,

Manufacturers will not control what users do with their drones, as soon as the user buys it, its his and his responsibility alone.
Car manufacturers don’t come under pressure to slow cars down because idiots speed. But just like car manufacturers I think dji will continue to make drones safer.

Sorry but hasn't DJI already limited some drones (Mini ?) in India to a ridiculously low height above the take off point in compliance with Indian regulations that were in force at that time? I would say that that is control.
Do DJI not, theoretically, already limit the ground speeds of their drones? ( Of course you can get idiots that put a Mini up in storm Eunice and boast about their mini doing a ground speed near 100mph and then whinge about the fact the the drone was lost ).
Do DJI not already limit the maximum height above the take off point to 500m (for most people)? Are there not already distance limits in some drones in beginner's mode etc.?

It would not be difficult for DJI to introduce lower maximum-height ceilings and introduce permanent range limits for everyone which could limt drones to the average persons VLOS range, those are controls.
If governments said "no import permission unless you drones compy with this limitations" do you think DJI would not comply and lose the market place?
Yes people would be able to fly as they want within those limits but such limits would severely restrict the drone's enevelope.

Sean-bumble-bee Posted at 3-15 11:52
Sorry but hasn't DJI already limited some drones (Mini ?) in India to a ridiculously low height above the take off point in compliance with Indian regulations that were in force at that time? I would say that that is control.
Do DJI not, theoretically, already limit the ground speeds of their drones? ( Of course you can get idiots that put a Mini up in storm Eunice and boast about their mini doing a ground speed near 100mph and then whinge about the fact the the drone was lost ).
Do DJI not already limit the maximum height above the take off point to 500m (for most people)? Are there not already distance limits in some drones in beginner's mode etc.?

Everything you buy is governed by the territory its sold in. Dji don’t decide what’s best for Indians Irish or English , but its bound by the rules of the countries or areas its sells its products . IE weight category speed noise safety Radio Bands, Japanese weight category . CE, FCC, etc.

So if speed is reduced its because it needs to pass some rules. Yes the manufacturers do this but only because they are bound by rules and laws.

So yes dji has limited some drones but not by their design. And this is the same with almost all goods including food we buy.

So dji are not responsible for the idiots on you tube , but they do have a moral obligation to both safety and usability of their products for their customers. You’ve been around drones and will know of safety improvements made by drone companies mostly coming out of djis handbook, so this is I suppose how they’re making their products safe for user and the public.

hallmark007 Posted at 3-15 11:15
Manufacturers will not control what users do with their drones, as soon as the user buys it, its his and his responsibility alone.
Car manufacturers don’t come under pressure to slow cars down because idiots speed. But just like car manufacturers I think dji will continue to make drones safer.

for the most part, this is true but i can think of three times when car manufacturers went out of their way to encourage people not to drive so fast.  of course, they didn't impose a limit but they tried to make it not so much fun.  again, i don't really know why they did it but i'm pretty sure it wasnt a law.  this was a long time ago so i could be way off base.

first, once upon a time america vehicles would only show up to 85mph on the speedo.  obviously the car would go faster but if you couldn't make it reach triple digits on the clock, i guess the thinking was not so much fun. kinda works for me as a kid since you hit 85 and no matter how fast you went, you never knew sure.  my friends japanese cars would show 200 mph but they couldn't even come close to that.

second, they use to put 55mph is big numbers as if they were hinting at "you know this is the national speed limit, right?"  for a digit dash, iirc i had numbers that would turn red after that.

third, i used to have cars that would not go past 149mph.  it would hit that number and the cut the gas, the car would quit on you literally hitting a wall.  it had a limiter.  not sure why, mechanical?  pretty sure my car would do a lot faster because it was still pulling.

i don't see why dji couldn't do something similar to consumer drones but either it likely won't help much or customers would start hating on their drones.  i think they already have effective novice modes and settings that keep things under control.  as long as it's not a law, i agree dji is under no obligation.   by law, i means "consumer drones must not be capable of exceeding...." not "pilots shall keep their drones under..."