MARSAN Posted at 2017-7-19 11:21
Then we have finally found the culprit: DJI and their faulty NFZ maps.

The only faulty items are the brains of the persons flying  drones without following the rules, either willingly or by ignorance.  Comparing drones to cars or birds shows a complete lack of critical thinking.

Antonio76 Posted at 2017-7-19 23:39
The only faulty items are the brains of the persons flying  drones without following the rules, either willingly or by ignorance.  Comparing drones to cars or birds shows a complete lack of critical thinking.

Excuse me, lack of critical thinking? Please revise your definition of "critical" and "thinking".

Let me be quite clear about this, I am NOT condoning this Tel Aviv drone incident by any means, but I do find it hilarious how some people in this thread make a huge fuss about a non-event, yet completely ignore the fact that motor vehicles kill each year worldwide well over one million people.
That is the population of a small town wiped out each year by motor vehicles alone.

Now please tell me, how many people are killed or even seriously injured each year by one of our small drones (excluding military drones)?
Therefore, motor vehicles danger = major event, small (non-military) drones danger = non-event.

MARSAN Posted at 2017-7-20 01:58
Excuse me, lack of critical thinking? Please revise your definition of "critical" and "thinking".

Let me be quite clear about this, I am NOT condoning this Tel Aviv drone incident by any means, but I do find it hilarious how some people in this thread make a huge fuss about a non-event, yet completely ignore the fact that motor vehicles kill each year worldwide well over one million people.

ok, keep comparing apples to oranges if it makes you happy...

Antonio76 Posted at 2017-7-20 02:26
ok, keep comparing apples to oranges if it makes you happy...

Really?
When it comes down to the safety of human beings, who are the apples and who are the oranges?

MARSAN Posted at 2017-7-20 02:32
Really?
When it comes down to the safety of human beings, who are the apples and who are the oranges?

Automotive technology has been around for more than a hundred years, and even though much has been done in terms of safety and regulation, the number of fatalities (but why limit to fatalities? Even lesser injuries are a heavy toll to pay) is increasing, and nothing effective has been done to actually prevent unsafe driving from happening. Drone technology on the other hand is fairly recent, and the widespread use of drones  sees an increasing number of people using them for whatever purpose and with no real assessment of their actual capacity -and willingness- of dealing with them safely. Incessantly mumbling the mantra that no people (so far) have died from drones will not help avoiding disasters. I agree that enforcing NFZs by totally disabling drones from flying in some (already restricted by law) zones is a technology that is very young and surely not perfect, but sofar is the only way to prevent a theoretical risk from becoming an actual tragedy. So I would increase the efforts in **perfecting** it and make it enforceable on ALL drones, not just the DJI ones. Surely some sort of technology aimed at effectively and **safely**  disabling a car when the person at the wheel does not fulfill certain conditions is also needed, and surely more urgently… but the complexity of it is enormous and I don't see any fast solution in the automotive field, whereas with drones it is somewhat easier (and in both cases it really doesn't matter if you call cars apples and drones oranges or the other way around, since the point is human lives, not the classification  of fruits…)

The problem is that drones have become something that pretty much anyone can legally purchase and fly, without practice or knowledge. Anyone: village idiots, teens, kids, could fly a drone. It doesn't matter if you are physically or mentally impaired, contrary to getting a car (which requires license, insurance, etc), or a gun, there are no legal requirements.

And as is, for someone without knowledge/practice, those drones are sold and advertised to break the simplest "rules": just go on the Mavic product page and look at the flying distance. It's sold to fly at a distance up to 13 km. Even the 7 km FCC compliant signal range distance is way outside of VLOS. But that's what DJI is advertising (FLY FURTHER, STAY FLYING LONGER, etc). There is also NOTHING from blocking anyone from maxing out most countries maximum flying altitude. So apart from "common sense", which is subjective, the hardware sold to us to is obviously not rules compliant. Don't make it a mass consumer product if you can't enforce the rules that you preach.

We've seen many reports proving that A LOT of people are not ready to fly those drones. And that's just from the information publicly advertised. With the thousands of drones in the sky, you can be sure that there are more unqualified pilots than qualified ones.

Some might say that we don't need more restrictions. Agree, we don't need restrictions AFTER you have purchased your drone. We needed restrictions to purchase a drone. If you don't have a license, insurance, etc, you can't buy a drone.

Antonio76 Posted at 2017-7-20 05:04
Automotive technology has been around for more than a hundred years, and even though much has been done in terms of safety and regulation, the number of fatalities (but why limit to fatalities? Even lesser injuries are a heavy toll to pay) is increasing, and nothing effective has been done to actually prevent unsafe driving from happening. Drone technology on the other hand is fairly recent, and the widespread use of drones  sees an increasing number of people using them for whatever purpose and with no real assessment of their actual capacity -and willingness- of dealing with them safely. Incessantly mumbling the mantra that no people (so far) have died from drones will not help avoiding disasters. I agree that enforcing NFZs by totally disabling drones from flying in some (already restricted by law) zones is a technology that is very young and surely not perfect, but sofar is the only way to prevent a theoretical risk from becoming an actual tragedy. So I would increase the efforts in **perfecting** it and make it enforceable on ALL drones, not just the DJI ones. Surely some sort of technology aimed at effectively and **safely**  disabling a car when the person at the wheel does not fulfill certain conditions is also needed, and surely more urgently… but the complexity of it is enormous and I don't see any fast solution in the automotive field, whereas with drones it is somewhat easier (and in both cases it really doesn't matter if you call cars apples and drones oranges or the other way around, since the point is human lives, not the classification  of fruits…)

Using this drone incident in Tel Aviv as an example, we clearly saw that the DJI NFZ map differs quite a bit from the official Israeli NFZ map.

Also, if oh so many people are afraid that our small drones fly into airplanes, then why don't they throw a Mavic into a running jet engine - which can easily be arranged on the ground - to actually observe what would REALLY happen to a jet engine when it sucks up a drone.
I am sure that DJI would be able to spare at least three drones to perform this test.

chalde Posted at 2017-7-20 06:31
The problem is that drones have become something that pretty much anyone can legally purchase and fly, without practice or knowledge. Anyone: village idiots, teens, kids, could fly a drone. It doesn't matter if you are physically or mentally impaired, contrary to getting a car (which requires license, insurance, etc), or a gun, there are no legal requirements.

And as is, for someone without knowledge/practice, those drones are sold and advertised to break the simplest "rules": just go on the Mavic product page and look at the flying distance. It's sold to fly at a distance up to 13 km. Even the 7 km FCC compliant signal range distance is way outside of VLOS. But that's what DJI is advertising (FLY FURTHER, STAY FLYING LONGER, etc). There is also NOTHING from blocking anyone from maxing out most countries maximum flying altitude. So apart from "common sense", which is subjective, the hardware sold to us to is obviously not rules compliant. Don't make it a mass consumer product if you can't enforce the rules that you preach.

You can buy a motor vehicle without a driver's license and without insurance.
I have been driving a car now for over 45 years and I have never been stopped by police asking me show those documents.
Only recently police has started to use special cameras that compare the license plates of cars with the insurance data base.

I fully agree. See post http://forum.dji.com/thread-91049-1-1.html

MARSAN Posted at 2017-7-20 08:05
You can buy a motor vehicle without a driver's license and without insurance.
I have been driving a car now for over 45 years and I have never been stopped by police asking me show those documents.
Only recently police has started to use special cameras that compare the license plates of cars with the insurance data base.

I did mention legally.
Every single time I got stopped by cops, they always asked for license at the minimum. And in the states, for registration. You can't register without proof of insurance.
Yes, people can go out of their way to own a car/gun illegally, but when caught, the consequences are harsh.

chalde Posted at 2017-7-20 08:27
I did mention legally.
Every single time I got stopped by cops, they always asked for license at the minimum. And in the states, for registration. You can't register without proof of insurance.
Yes, people can go out of their way to own a car/gun illegally, but when caught, the consequences are harsh.

In Belgium they have recently changed the method of acquiring a license plate. Normally it will be the insurance agent who will submit the request for new license plates. Obviously he/she wouldn't do that, if the car owner does not have insurance. But nobody wants to know whether I actually have a driver's license.

MARSAN Posted at 2017-7-20 07:52
Using this drone incident in Tel Aviv as an example, we clearly saw that the DJI NFZ map differs quite a bit from the official Israeli NFZ map.

Also, if oh so many people are afraid that our small drones fly into airplanes, then why don't they throw a Mavic into a running jet engine - which can easily be arranged on the ground - to actually observe what would REALLY happen to a jet engine when it sucks up a drone.

EASA will be testing effects on Aircraft Engines using Rolls Royce makers of commercial aircraft engines sometime in November at a cost of some €10 million,
These findings will be part of their new proposals for drone regulation throughout the whole of Europe.
I have attended many meetings with regards to these new forthcoming rules, which we should see sometime in 2018.
EASA have been extremely progressive in trying to bring these new rules to all concerned in Europe and having attended these meetings, drone flying in Europe will be much better prepared for the coming years, for all drone flyers commercial and hobbyists. And with the new development of what will become known as U SPACE due to come in 2019 for Europe, testing for all probabilities should be covered and documented.

MARSAN Posted at 2017-7-20 08:44
In Belgium they have recently changed the method of acquiring a license plate. Normally it will be the insurance agent who will submit the request for new license plates. Obviously he/she wouldn't do that, if the car owner does not have insurance. But nobody wants to know whether I actually have a driver's license.

You don't need a driver's license to buy a car. You need it to **drive** a car.

Antonio76 Posted at 2017-7-20 10:36
You don't need a driver's license to buy a car. You need it to **drive** a car.

Then I must be the only car driver on the road who actually has a driver's license...

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-7-20 08:53
EASA will be testing effects on Aircraft Engines using Rolls Royce makers of commercial aircraft engines sometime in November at a cost of some €10 million,
These findings will be part of their new proposals for drone regulation throughout the whole of Europe.
I have attended many meetings with regards to these new forthcoming rules, which we should see sometime in 2018.

I'll have to double check this info.
In any case, as far as I know, terrorists have not yet attacked airplanes using drones. There must be a reason for this...

MARSAN Posted at 2017-7-20 11:53
I'll have to double check this info.
In any case, as far as I know, terrorists have not yet attacked airplanes using drones. There must be a reason for this...

You do talk some awful drivel.

Things have moved considerably since this article.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviatio ... ions-u-space-system

every post of marsan:

Don't know if already posted but he was arrested

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ibtimes.co.uk/dji-drone-enthusiast-arrested-israel-filming-planes-landing-tel-aviv-airport-1630650

People doing stupid stuff like this don't understand the repercussions it can have for all drone flyers!  Just plain old dumb.

fans41779ada Posted at 2017-7-15 17:39
Will anyone read this GREAT observation?  Forums are like most "conversations".  Most people just want to talk, wait their opportunity, and hear NOTHING before.

BTW as a pilot, if DJI weren't acting as police, I wouldn't be very worried.  These are BIG airliners.  Yeah, worst case would probably be an engine loss if a Phantom got sucked through.  When I fly commercial, "drones" are not on my "worry radar".  Canadian Geese don't have No Fly Zones, and the barbaric critters fly in flocks!  And they're BIG and at over 200mph HARD.

Do you care to be on the plane that probably only has an engine failure ?

"The problem is that drones have become something that pretty much anyone can legally purchase and fly, without practice or knowledge. Anyone: village idiots, teens, kids, could fly a drone. It doesn't matter if you are physically or mentally impaired, contrary to getting a car (which requires license, insurance, etc), or a gun, there are no legal requirements."

"Don't make it a mass consumer product if you can't enforce the rules that you preach."

Exceptionally well said. That's the very essence of the product liability theory.

"We've seen many reports proving that A LOT of people are not ready to fly those drones. And that's just from the information publicly advertised. With the thousands of drones in the sky, you can be sure that there are more unqualified pilots than qualified ones. Some might say that we don't need more restrictions. Agree, we don't need restrictions AFTER you have purchased your drone. We needed restrictions to purchase a drone. If you don't have a license, insurance, etc, you can't buy a drone. "

That's one way for DJI to shield itself against product liability. Perhaps another way is to change the app so that an annoying window appears before each take-off warning that the NFZ data that DJI checked and programmed in the drone is inaccurate and should never be relied upon. Thereafter, the user must press a button saying that he/she is over a certain age, has checked the local NFZ and promises to follow them. Without requiring a license and without issuing clear and annoying warnings, a suit against DJI for manufacturing "inherently dangerous" products is just a matter of time.

There is a lot of discussions, maybe he hacked his Mavic maybe not, but if he hasn't and still got this close it can mean that maybe the NFZ for the airports are not properly adjusted by DJI, they should adjust it properly done, about the hacks I believe DJI must enforce the limits as manufacturer but at the same time be reliable and hear what the customer is ask, if they did 10% of what we ask probably there won't be any need to hack the devices, other option is to enforce their app and check fw status against hacked devices, like Samsung made on their phones and no more 3rd apps to control the drone

rstekeur Posted at 2017-7-21 12:57
Do you care to be on the plane that probably only has an engine failure ?

Or one of the passengers who has a delayed or cancelled flight due to their inbound aircraft being taken out of service while the engines are checked and/or repaired?  Or the tens of thousands of dollars such a delay will cost the airline.

A jet turbine is an incredibly highly engineered machine with miniscule tolerances.  A mavic hitting a turbine blade at 10,000rpm with a speed of 160 knots is going to be noticed.  Its going to cause vibration or other issues.  It could easily cause physical damage to an engine.  At absolute minimum that engine will need to be inspected (at large cost).
If it hits the prop of your single engine aircraft and damages it the balance issues could easily mean the engine has to be stopped and if you only have 1 engine to start with you're now a glider.

Or it hits and breaks or blocks a pitot or static port...Now you've lost instrumentation such as IAS, altitude or others - another emergency landing needed.

Or a bit gets wedged in the slats or flaps..Guess what - more repairs needed.

The chances of a consumer drone downing a plane are low.  The chances of an impact with a drone causing damage to and delays to that aircraft are very high - far smaller, lighter birds do it all the time.

UCBarkeeper Posted at 2017-7-21 03:36
every post of marsan:
[view_image]

..............

Exactly the kind of publicity DJI (or any other drone manufacturer) is afraid of getting. Incidents such as this will only lead to more regulation by the authorities. Our hobby is in jeopardy!

Lucas775 Posted at 2017-7-15 14:54
What an idiot NFZ or not it is still a fly path.

then the idiots are the airport, not the drone flyer

MARSAN Posted at 2017-7-16 01:48
Then it's Google maps against DJI maps with regard to NFZ.
Who is correct?
I would give DJI the edge as they are the ones who are in fact concerned, since their NFZ maps are used in the DJI drones.

DJI maps are not correct.  They incorrectly labeled my area as NFZ and willingly admitted it was in error.  I mean, seriously, ALL of DJI's NFZs are circles.  Literally every NFZ recognized by governing airspace bodies are polygonal in nature.  

Very immature system DJI has.

mmv|Creative Posted at 2017-7-25 08:35
then the idiots are the airport, not the drone flyer

How is that, since you the idiot pilot putting other peoples lives in danger.  Let that sink in and think about it.

Why are people so obsessed with DJIs own Geo system?  Do you not realise that in most of the world it isnt implemented.  Step outside the USA for once - the Geo system is only detailed for a few countries. Everywhere else NFZs still exist but the drone doesn't know about them.
And its *always* the operators responsibility to comply.  Not the drone, not DJI but the operator.

DJIs NFZ are also circular for a reason.  Storage space and processing power being the main reasons.

Lucas775 Posted at 2017-7-25 20:02
How is that, since you the idiot pilot putting other peoples lives in danger.  Let that sink in and think about it.

There are two things in it.

1. DJI's GEO/NFZ is so full of mistakes, for example, they allow the guy from Israel to fly in a Israel NFZ, that only covered the runway in Tela-Viev airfield from DJI's side.


2. The DJO's GEO/NFZ is so full of mistakes that they on many places prevent people from flying where they have their own government's permission.

In short, DJI's GEO / NFZ is a big scam that a company that wants to survive in the big world should avoid making. One should wait and see what the world outside China is adopting instead of forcing its customers worldwide to be Beta tests with their malfunctioning and weird software that can not cover reality.

In the end, it means that if the company DJI closes, you'll have a $1000+ item that you probably only can use as a doorstop. So simple is it actually.

Regards Leif.

chalde Posted at 2017-7-20 08:27
I did mention legally.
Every single time I got stopped by cops, they always asked for license at the minimum. And in the states, for registration. You can't register without proof of insurance.
Yes, people can go out of their way to own a car/gun illegally, but when caught, the consequences are harsh.

Actually, one can legally buy a car without license or insurance!
Also, one may legally drive it too without a license or insurance!
One MUST have a driving license to legally drive on PUBLIC roads; also, MUST have insurance to register the car before the car is driven by anyone on a public road.
Owning and even using using a car on your private property does not require any of those documents.
Damaging someones property, injuring or killing using a car is in no way different than doing it by other means (say, an UAV).
If I am not wrong, the authorities were never ready for new technologies. It took a long time to have proper laws governing the safety of "land vehicles" use, and the same is happening with governing "unmanned air vehicles". It was a easy while the airspace was mostly used by manned vehicles. The same craziness will happen with self-diving technologies in cars. Who's to say that self-driving platforms will only assist drivers in the future, when they could be used to fully drive vehicles, thus unmanned in the true sense (not like UAV, which are remote-piloted)? I am sure that the governing laws in such conditions will be hard to establish, considering how each involved entity will be looking for the easy way out, just enough to cover their rear.
Regarding the incident discussed in this thread, many people are right to panic and react aggressively when seeing such an irresponsible and selfish behavior from the "pilot". Actually there's a very simple way to explain this with a simple analogy. Imagine the following scenario: you pass by a schoolyard where lots of children run and play, while just next to it, there's this person target-practicing with his 50cal weapon. Would you even care if he has a license for it, or if he's the best shooter in the world, or if any of those kids are yours or your relatives? Should you first check if there's enough protection between his target field and the schoolyard? Maybe his gun has some top-secret safety feature that will never shoot when an innocent child is in the way... maybe a bullet would ricochet or simply shoot another object that will bounce straight into a kid's head!
Last thing I want to add: would be best if the requirements needed for flying a quad would be as easy to obtain as the driving license and if one pilot makes a mess it won't affect all pilots by changing the rules into stricter ones (even complete ban).