Well, what will i do now?  
From beginning of the 2024 Mavic 2 Pro will be under Class C3 in Europe, that means u cant fly closer than 150m to buildings and people.



For real estate photos and videos i cant use my mavic 2Pro anymore. 150m and there u can get any needed footage with single wide angle lens.




My question is, is DJI doing some trande in options for DJI lojal customers as it was a pro series and not cheap drone which is now obsolete?`


All the best!
JK

Under the EASA rules the 150m rule has been in place for some time.  

Not obsolete, but far less useful indeed.
Which is why I opted for a <250g drone when I read about these new rules.
The new rules have been announced long before the Mavic 2 Pro was released (starting in 2015 with the first proposal) so for business use, these drones will have been written off a  long time now.

Hello, Jarmok6. There is no trade-up program currently. We highly recommended you check it with other official and formal trade-in websites. Sorry for the inconvenience and thank you for your understanding.

Still lots of places to fly the M2P. Especially here in Scotland.

I think we can fly under  C3  BUT it is an interesting comment that  the regulation was known about  from 2015, four years ahead of the release of the Mavic2 Pro.
I am certain that DJI will resist the notion that the are in some way responsible for the bricking of / highly restricted usage of the  aircraft  once the legislation came into force.

The 150 radius does make it nigh impossible to  operate the Mavic 2 Pro as it is intended and so the pilots are suffering a loss for which there should be compensation.  
It is also  difficult to understand how DJI failed to procure the  certification - was it noise, was it speed was it range.
All  these topics should have been made public to allow the prospective purchaser aware that the equipment they were buying had a finite legal shelf life for the purpose they were buying it.

What makes it worse is that it is stull possible to buy the Mavic 2 pro  NEW  in Switzerland - again no mention of C certification status

There is an arguable case DJI failed in their duty of care by designing an aircraft which was not capable of being  modified via firmware and propellor design  to allow compliance with the C certification regulations
AND/ OR failed to notify prospective consumers that the aircraft would NOT comply with future C certification in any of the marketing and  pre contract materials they issued.
This would be by way of statements on their websites, on the packaging prior to opening the equipment.

If any  MAVIC 2 Pro owners  are as  disgruntled as I am  please  make a note in the comments below.
For those of us in the EU area  it is possible to raise class  action to pursue  for compensation via the  EU court.  It may be that a  significant number of  users   voicing their dissatisfaction as one voice on this forum may  bring DJI to it's senses and either work with the regulators to achieve compliance or provide some voucher /return scheme for a new  model which does comply

nrgpix Posted at 6-2 02:52
the regulation was known about  from 2015, four years ahead of the release of the Mavic2 Pro.

If there was advanced warning of this then surely there is also a question of what research did prospective owners do before buying the drone, no one forced them to buy the drones.
I have Phantom 3, M2P & M2Z drones  if they are eventually legally grounded I am not going to blame DJI for that, I should either not have bought them or sold them prior to their devaluation.


Far too many people try to "pass the buck". Take responsibility for your own actions.

nrgpix Posted at 6-2 02:52
I think we can fly under  C3  BUT it is an interesting comment that  the regulation was known about  from 2015, four years ahead of the release of the Mavic2 Pro.

A3, not C3.
And just because someone claims it here doesn't make it true. The standards for certification weren't even finalized in 2020/2021, and it's not for nothing that the implementation of the EU regulation was postponed several times. Before complaining, one should at least do some research.

skyscope Posted at 6-2 11:16
A3, not C3.
And just because someone claims it here doesn't make it true. The standards for certification weren't even finalized in 2020/2021, and it's not for nothing that the implementation of the EU regulation was postponed several times. Before complaining, one should at least do some research.

"A3, not C3"
Small confusion A3 / C3 that's fine, everyone understood.


"The standards for certification weren't even finalized in 2020/2021"
The initial text was published on June 11, 2019.
EUR-Lex - 02019R0945-20190611 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu)
It was amended on August 9, 2020, (To add C5 - C6)
EUR-Lex - 02019R0945-20200809 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu)

So there you have it, for drones from C0 to C4, the regulations were known in June 2019. For application on July 1, 2022.

"and it's not for nothing that the implementation of the EU regulation was postponed several times."
This is a claim from the manufacturers who have declared that they cannot technically apply law 945  and who have requested additional time. Mainly because of the Covid period.
Implementing regulation - 2020/746 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu)

Implementing regulation - 2021/1166 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu)
Implementing regulation - 2022/425 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu)

LV_Forestry Posted at 6-2 12:02
So there you have it, for drones from C0 to C4, the regulations were known in June 2019. For application on July 1, 2022.

Another small confusion?
I wrote "Standards for certification" not "Regulation" with purpose.  
Google for EN 4709.

skyscope Posted at 6-2 14:31
Another small confusion?
I wrote "Standards for certification" not "Regulation" with purpose.  
Google for EN 4709.

Sometimes it is better to stop in time and admit that you are wrong. Afterwards the risk is to become ridiculous.

Alright, that confirms my suspicion that EN 4709 doesn't mean anything to you. No wonder you have no idea about timelines or when manufacturers could even classify according to 945/2019.

skyscope Posted at 6-2 23:27
Alright, that confirms my suspicion that EN 4709 doesn't mean anything to you. No wonder you have no idea about timelines or when manufacturers could even classify according to 945/2019.

This has nothing to do with the erroneous statements in post No. 10.

It is disheartening to see that a product as advanced as the Mavic 2 Pro, which meets high standards of safety and performance, is not allowed under the A2 category. The recent changes have placed serious limitations on where and how I can use the drone, which seems neither fair nor justifiable, especially for those of us who have made significant investments in this technology.

Any news? It's a pity that my Mavic 2 Pro has become pretty much useless