TO DJI MANAGEMENT AND COMPETENT EXECUTIVES:
We have adopted the DJI Phantom product line and VAIPERU.com owns from the FC40 to the Phantom 3 Professional.
We have been building a business in California and Peru on these vehicles and now after investing on the Phantom 3 we find ourselves "BLOCKED" from flying in areas that we have local authorization to fly for security and business reasons. FOR US THIS MOVE IS A MAKE OR BREAK AND WE ARE VERY UPSET ABOUT THIS MOVE
WE TOTALLY DISAGREE THE UNILATERAL AND INVASIVE DECISION TO BLOCK THE ENTIRE LIMA PERU AIRSPACE TO FLY PHANTOM 3'S.
AS CONSUMERS AND PROFESSIONALS INVESTORS ON YOUR PRODUCTS WE HAVE A CHOICE AND NOW WE FIND OURSELVES FORCED TO MIGRATE AWAY FROM DJI AND BRING EQUALLY SOPHISTICATED PLATFORMS BASED IN THE EU AND USA - I ENCOURAGE DJI TO RE-CONSIDER THIS DECISION AS YOU DON'T HAVE ANY JURISDICTION OVER USA AND SOUTH AMERICAN AIRSPACE - LET THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES MANAGE THEIR OWN AIRSPACE WITH LOCAL LEGISLATION AND RULES - YOUR MOVE WILL HAVE HUGE BACKLASH AND REPERCUSSIONS ON YOUR COMPANY - TRUST ME THE FORUMS ARE ON FIRE ABOUT THE INVASION OF THE PROFESIONALS RIGHTS THAT GO FROM BUSINESS PEOPLE TO CERTIFIED EXPERIENCED PILOTS - YOU REALLY STEPED OUR OF YOUR BOUNDARIES

Davphys Posted at 2016-1-12 11:29
Bravo. I hope Brendan Schulman is reading this.

I happen to agree with the statements made by Jose Carreon on the matter of no-fly zones. A warning should be sufficient to deter people from flying around airports, and if folks override that warning, then it is at their own peril.
Normally I think avoiding hazards is a good idea, and the altitude warning you have in place is a good example of what you should do.
I suspect without any evidence to back it up that the ban you impose is entirely political, well meaning in the sense of saving lives, but overstepping the bounds of corporate behavior.
If I flew near an airport I would want to be notified I was doing that, and welcome the message not to do so.
But is should be my free choice, NOT YOURS.

Davphys Posted at 2016-1-12 11:29
Bravo. I hope Brendan Schulman is reading this.

I happen to agree with the statements made by Jose Carreon on the matter of no-fly zones. A warning should be sufficient to deter people from flying around airports, and if folks override that warning, then it is at their own peril.
Normally I think avoiding hazards is a good idea, and the altitude warning you have in place is a good example of what you should do.
I suspect without any evidence to back it up that the ban you impose is entirely political, well meaning in the sense of saving lives, but overstepping the bounds of corporate behavior.
If I flew near an airport I would want to be notified I was doing that, and welcome the message not to do so.
But it should be my free choice, NOT YOURS.

I agree - show restrictions on GPS map but do not restrict flying

Davphys Posted at 2016-1-11 23:02
What a shitty corporate ethos DJI is revealing. They should publicly acknowledge a botched and poor  ...

DJI's irresponsible and incompetent approach to releasing software is well documented. They don't want to be bothered with too much testing. They just throw it out into the wild and don't seem to care what happens. They are too concerned with relea$ing new products to go back and fix the problems they created. This was a blindsided assault on their customers.

The geofence hasn't been officially released yet . Please contact Flysafe@dji.com to share your opinions .

Brendan Schulman, VP of Policy and Legal Affairs: Brendan.Schulman@dji.com
Adam Najberg, Director of Communications: Adam.Najberg@dji.com


As per advice on DJI website: http://www.dji.com/newsroom/news/dji-fly-safe-system

dji: back to the roots: build good copter, make a good software but dont be worlds policemen!
Regards from Munich/ Germany

Davphys Posted at 2016-1-12 11:29
Bravo. I hope Brendan Schulman is reading this.

Bravo. I hope Brendan Schulman does something/anything positive real soon. We have seen nothing directly from him recently.