sanityassassin
lvl.1
United States
Offline
|
After having an email discussion with a "tech" who didn't seem very knowledgable of the issues, my hope is that a real person from DJI will respond to this thread:
First let me start a little with my background:
I have been both a Radio Control pilot and a pilot of real aircraft for over 25 years. Additionally, I have been a licensed Airframe & Powerplant mechanic for 12 years. I also have backgrounds in "in-orbit" satellite control, radio comminications, and nuclear power. I only mention my work history and experience to make it clear that I am well versed and knowledable when it comes to my questions and concerns here.
My dilemma:
I have been waiting with great anticipation for the release of the DJI Phantom 2 Vision+. Last week, I was getting ready to purchase one as a Christmas present to myself. Before I pulled the trigger on the order, I did a little bit of reading. Of particular interest was the "no-fly zone" feature. At first glance, I thought to myself, "very cool!" and "great idea". Unfortunately, this initial feeling lasted just for a moment. I assumed that this system was good to have as a "default" feature but that more advanced users should be able to deactivate it. The more I read, the more this option seemed unlikely.
My main concern was due to some of the locations I planned on doing some filming--inside some of the large maintenance hangars that I work in all over the country (USA). I have captured some pretty good video of my guys working on our planes overnight with my Parrot AR, but I was really lookng forward to stepping that up a notch with the gimballed camera of the Vision+. Unfortunately most of these indoor hangars now fall under the no-fly zone that DJI has programmed into their firmware.
I contacted DJI tech support to ask them how I could accompish my objectives with the Vision+...I asked could I deactivate the no-fly zones, fly in a different mode, or disable the GPS--the answer I received were, "No" and "this is governed by the FAA!"
NO! There is no legal requirement to place no-fly zones into controller software of radio control aircraft! The applicable rules are found in AC 91-57 and they certainly do not mention these "requirements" because they DO NOT EXIST! You can legally fly in a hangar smack in the middle of Class B Airspace. You can actually fly inside Class C or D airspace provided you have made arrangments with ATC, FSS, or whatever governing entity presides over the airspace in question!
I think it is a valid assumption that this unwanted feature (no-fly zone) was created to appease some government nay-sayers and to show that DJI is doing something to prevent would be ass-hats from doing something unscrupulous. Obviously the Chinese government (where DJI is based) loves this since they had DJI create a no-fly zone within 15km of Tiananmen Square. For those young people that don't remember, Tiananmen Square is a bad memory for the Chinese government. Don't know what I am talking about? Take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989.
Here on the other side of the world, we are very protective of the freedoms that we have earned. Freedoms which seem to be put in jeopardy more and more everyday. Having an undefeatable no-fly zone system in place which can deactivate your personal property at the whim of DJI or the government is an affront to freedom and goes contrary to common sense. Don't understand me? Listen...
One of the first things that we have learned in the aviation industry (especially as technology has expanded in leaps and bounds) is that in a flying machine...ANY device which functions automatically MUST be able to be defeated. Automatic devices can fail due to interference, mechanical problems, or problems with new code being implemented. Since this technology is based on GPS positioning, a no-fly zone can be created by ANYONE with the technical means at any time they want (not just the government or police). Ever heard of GPS spoofing? GPS devices can be fooled to think they are somewhere else..see: http://www.itnews.com.au/News/351659,students-hijack-luxury-yacht-with-gps-spoofing.aspx. The technology to create a GPS spoofing attack exists today! This is one of the many reasons why the DJI No-Fly zone should be able to be deactivated by the pilot.
As implemented, if a no-fly zone enabled DJI product is happily flying along and then all of a sudden finds itself in a no-fly zone it makes a beeline for the ground. According to DJI you still have some directional control but this is a moot point if there are trees in the line of sight between you and your aircraft. This seems inherently dangerous and foolish.
Enough about my concerns...how about some suggestions:
If as a condition of doing business in communist countries, DJI must enable no-fly zones, then so be it.
But, how about releasing a different version for those of us that live in more democratic nations?
As I stated before, I can totally understand having the system...and I think it should be "on" by default, but it should also be defeatable. If defeated, the no-fly database should still be able to give warnings, but it should not be in control of the aircraft. If somehow DJI feels that this puts them in some sort of legal hot water (I think having it non-defeatable is more harmful), then incorporate a waiver system or something of the like..(i.e. you must electronically accept terms/conditions like we do with any other product). Or, if you want something more trackable, DJI sends you an unlock code after signing a waiver. None of my other aircraft have this unwated option and their respective manufacturers are ok with that.
In closing, I really, really, REALLY wanted to purchase that new Vision+ but if DJI is going to prevent me from flying my unit (both responsibilly and legally), then there is no reason for me to purchase it. There are of course other options (the Blade 350 QX2 or the 3D Robotics Iris+ immediately come to mind), but I think I am going to give you guys (or the hacker community) a chance first. Please consider my suggestions.
Thanks,
Brian
|
|