Please select Into the mobile phone version | Continue to access the computer ver.
[POLL] Would You Opt Out of DJI's "Geo Fencing"...If You Could?
12Next >
1383 68 2017-9-16
Uploading and Loding Picture ...(0/1)
o(^-^)o
Genghis9
Captain
United States
Offline

Currently there is a debate within the forum on the issue of DJI's GEO Fencing, which has been ongoing since DJI instituted this restrictive system, retroactively in many cases, through software updates.  GEO Fencing (DJI geofencing technologies) is basically DJI's system of preventing UAV operators the ability to fly in NFZs and other restricted airspace.  Most of these zones are airfields, sensitive sites, and designated zones that do not permit overflight by the applicable countries airspace controlling agency (i.e. in the US it is the FAA).  This is accomplished using regularly updated and downloaded maps internal to the UAV directly (i.e. stored in the aircraft). The interface is between your UAV and the GO or GO 4 App and/or the DJI website (http://www.dji.com/flysafe) where by you can request permission to "unlock" some zones and apply to fly in the remaining ones through a more involved application process.  Otherwise, you are restricted from even starting your motors if you attempt to fly within any of the restricted zones and if you attempt to enter from outside a zone your UAV will stop and hover at the border.  This is a very basic explanation, for more detailed info see http://www.dji.com/flysafe/geo-system.
The debate is primarily between two groups of thought, one believes this is a perfectly acceptable practice by DJI to improve and enhance flight safety and the other believes this is far outside a foreign corporation’s sphere of influence, responsibility, and authority by making itself a de-facto and duplicative airspace control authority of other nations.  The first group believes that if you are flying safely and following the law then you have nothing to be concerned about by DJI's restrictions; they believe only the lawless are being restricted.  The second group believes that they fully own their property (their UAV) and should be able to operate it in their country freely while following all applicable laws, and that DJI has no right to be restricting the use of their property and setting itself up as an airspace management system inside their nation's borders.  Both sides agree that flight safety is paramount and that all UAV operators should follow the law and regulations.  It comes down to a matter of how that is done.  Should the property owner have the sole responsibility and liability of their actions or should DJI take that away from the property owner by establishing their own operating restrictions, supposedly based on each nation's restrictions.  One last note to consider, there is proven instances where DJI’s restricted zones are not accurate (as to the actual defined airspace borders) or that they reflect current and accurate information (i.e. outdated).

The purpose of this poll is not to influence you or DJI, while it might, it is to see what the forum thinks of this particular aspect to DJI UAV ownership and allow for discussion on this aspect of the current debate.

POLL QUESTION: IF YOU WERE GIVEN THE CHOICE OF OPTING OUT OF DJI'S RESTRICTIVE GEO FENCING SYSTEM WOULD YOU?
(Please read each possible response carefully, they are each different, choose only 1)
Single SelectVote, Total 37 people participate in voting
Your user group with no voting privileges
2017-9-16
Use props
KEDDK
Captain
Flight distance : 1133038 ft
Denmark
Offline

I did take no.11 even it is not a yes for 2+7  :-)

I am in almost all my flights strugling with the false implementation af EWZ from the DJI system, that is not alright at all.
If it just did give me a notice that i was in or near a zone of any kind i wouldn't mind but this had to come before take off, not something i see when i am already airborn and look to the screen in order to do some work.

Another problem not mentioned in your vote/post is that what happen in case of EQ, political crises or other thing that does that you can not get a unlock from China, not good and not alright at all.
It should be possible to take off without any delay, it could in some situations help saving life, let local law and order handle the ones who don't follow local rules, not the producent of a flying camera!

2017-9-16
Use props
Genghis9
Captain
United States
Offline

KEDDK Posted at 2017-9-16 11:39
I did take no.11 even it is not a yes for 2+7  :-)

I am in almost all my flights strugling with the false implementation af EWZ from the DJI system, that is not alright at all.

KEDDK,
All good points that I can agree with...yes the DJI system as it stands now is heavily bureaucratic and does not allow for the rapidly changing world of UAV use such as life saving or disaster response efforts to name a few.
However, I'm sure you must realize that no poll is perfect, including this one, and it is nearly impossible to capture every possible variation and circumstance.  I figured 11 possible responses was enough for most people, and if not then just as you did they could comment further.
Take Care and Fly Safe
2017-9-16
Use props
Hellsgate
Captain
Flight distance : 1991555 ft
Australia
Offline

I do work for search and rescue here in Australia luckily so far i have not been hindered by this restriction in my area.
I do however understand both sides of the story dji on one hand depending on your point of view either taking away and/or restricing your properties capabilities.
This in its self could be seen as a breach of simple human rights ie you dont actually fully own your drone if dji can force restrictions on you.
On the other hand you have a safety factor involved here all restricted zones are restricted for a very good reason especially when peoples lives could be at risk for example flying around airports.
Maybe instead of just a yes or no question here you could have added an option for this feature to be either turned on or off at will.
Dji hold no responsibility for were we fly our drones so what happens when we fly in a restricted zone that is not updated into the drone, can we pass this fine over to dji because they failed to do there job or is the pilot responsible for his/her actions, its the pilot of course every time.
2017-9-16
Use props
hallmark007
Captain
Flight distance : 4751657 ft
  • >>>
Ireland
Offline

There seems to an implication that dji is acting of its own accord here, maybe word from bodies such as FAA to let us know if there was consultation with aviation bodies regarding protecting each country's NFZ zones, we or at least I know there is ongoing consultations with aviation body EASA in regards to all aspects of safety regarding SUA,s , this includes safety when flying and safety of peopl citizens and property.
It seems that the op is implying that dji are acting alone in setting out and mapping NFZ zones but do we know this is what is happening, surely if the FAA charges itself with making the rules for flying SUA's in the USA they would need to be consulted about such an undertaking.
Maybe they weren't or maybe they were, but to have a balanced debate we surely need to know what the situation between the FAA and other aviation authorities governments etc is.
Regarding mistakes in areas that should not be governed by NFZ I think everyone would welcome the removal of these , and I'm sure this will be and are being  sorted all the time with current updates.
In Europe and US we tell dji how they should manufacture their drones to comply with the rules and regulations set down by our citizens and our governments and their goods to be sold in all our countries must comply with strict codes of safety and manufacturing compliance. So would it not be beyond us to consult or advise dji how it could make drones to be flown in our countries safer .

For me I don't seem to have the same problem as those in the US seem be having, I have had to unlock NFZ due to work commitments and it's a pretty simple task if you have the time to prepare, I do understand the frustration of some who find themselves locked out and a days flying ruined or money lost because of spurious NFZ's.

We have a hobby business which is growing exponentially at a very rapid rate , it is not being policed in almost all countries it is basically been left up to drone pilots to apply the rules to themselves and while we have not seen any major destruction we shouldn't sit around waiting for it to happen. So who is responsible for this hobby business, I think we are all responsible and everything we can do to make it safe and to grow it as a safe hobby/business we should get behind.

There will be some that say there have been 0 deaths from drones. I say to that 0 is the best number you can have keep it that way.
Fly safe...
2017-9-16
Use props
Genghis9
Captain
United States
Offline

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-9-16 13:28
There seems to an implication that dji is acting of its own accord here, maybe word from bodies such as FAA to let us know if there was consultation with aviation bodies regarding protecting each country's NFZ zones, we or at least I know there is ongoing consultations with aviation body EASA in regards to all aspects of safety regarding SUA,s , this includes safety when flying and safety of peopl citizens and property.
It seems that the op is implying that dji are acting alone in setting out and mapping NFZ zones but do we know this is what is happening, surely if the FAA charges itself with making the rules for flying SUA's in the USA they would need to be consulted about such an undertaking.
Maybe they weren't or maybe they were, but to have a balanced debate we surely need to know what the situation between the FAA and other aviation authorities governments etc is.

halllmark007,
Well stated my friend and you bring some good points to the debate.

However, as you yourself stated, speculation is not a solid ground from which to stand on either side of this debate.  Maybe yes maybe no, as far as who has contacted who or whom.  I'm certain in one capacity or another there has been some communication at some level, but therein lies the problem.  Who communicated what and when and to what end?  I don't know, you don't know, and no one as of yet has provided information to show they know.  I suggest, if you wish to make this an argument in support of your position on this topic then perhaps you should find out exactly who is saying what to whom, and then let us all know what that is.

I think antidotal evidence shows that if DJI had strict adherence guidelines to follow as directed from the FAA that they would A) be pushing more and frequent updates to the NFZ map and B) the data they use would be accurate and have fewer errors.  However, they are not and they do not, which tells me there is no close coordination at any level with the FAA.  Indications from others around the globe seem to show the same thing.  You must decide.

I can state from my position that it doesn't matter as I am quite confident that our law enforcement community and the FAA are extremely capable of keeping those rogue hobbyist in check or punishing the ones that don't.  Therefore, I personally resent a foreign corporation getting involved in my business and my property rights, which is just my feeling and opinion of course.
Cheers!
2017-9-16
Use props
Geebax
Captain
Australia
Offline

A couple of point to add to this. No person who owns a P4, Mavic, Spark or P4P can claim retroactive implementation of the GEO system. It was introduced during the P3 series, so anyone buying a DJI aircraft after that would have known about the system if they did their research properly.

The second thing is the GEO system itself. There was a news article published at the time that explained that DJI, Yuneec and 3D robotics (as I recall) had got together to jointly implement a geo-fencing system. Unfortunately, I cannot find that news item any longer. the 'alliance' was to use a seperate company whose speciality was in mapping for aviation, to draw up the fencing system, consulting through the agencies in various countries. The 3 members of the 'alliance' would not have anythiong to do with the mapping, referring any queries to the mapping company. BTW, as I recell, and my memory is not without fault, that independant mapping company is a US company. But in any event, it is they who maintain the mapping system, not DJI.

There was a lot of speculation at the time as to why these 3 companies would even co-operate with each other, much less in a project of this type. And why would they implement a system that would upset their customer base? It was speculated that they had been leaned on by somebody (the FAA being the chief suspect) in a manner along the lines of 'either come up with a method to keep your products out of restricted airspace or we will come down on you like a ton of bricks with laws and regulations'. Personally, I can beleive that it happened.

In the wash-up, 3D Robotics all but vanished from the scene, leaving DJI and Yuneec still going, and if you look at the Yuneec range, it also implements a similar system to the DJI GEO system, check out their web site under 'Fly Safe'. There you will find the following statement: 'Yuneec drones are pre-programmed to prevent flying in national aviation authority designated No-Fly Zones or in excess of 400ft above ground level. ' They also publish an NFZ map on the same page. Amusingly, it is a bunch of simple circles.

This alone points out that DJI are not acting on their own, and there is indeed another 'Chinese owned foreign corporation telling you where you can fly'.

2017-9-16
Use props
Genghis9
Captain
United States
Offline

Geebax Posted at 2017-9-16 15:45
A couple of point to add to this. No person who owns a P4, Mavic, Spark or P4P can claim retroactive implementation of the GEO system. It was introduced during the P3 series, so anyone buying a DJI aircraft after that would have known about the system if they did their research properly.

The second thing is the GEO system itself. There was a news article published at the time that explained that DJI, Yuneec and 3D robotics (as I recall) had got together to jointly implement a geo-fencing system. Unfortunately, I cannot find that news item any longer. the 'alliance' was to use a seperate company whose speciality was in mapping for aviation, to draw up the fencing system, consulting through the agencies in various countries. The 3 members of the 'alliance' would not have anythiong to do with the mapping, referring any queries to the mapping company. BTW, as I recell, and my memory is not without fault, that independant mapping company is a US company. But in any event, it is they who maintain the mapping system, not DJI.
Geebax,
Thank you, all helpful points, and some useful information to add to the mix!

Well, taking you at your word, I'd agree several companies of the industry pooled their resources to do what they thought would advance their product sales and attempt to avoid liability, I can't say that I blame them on that foot alone.  However, everything else at present is pure speculation and does not change the underlying issue of how to regulate and maintain airspace safety while adhering to consumer rights after legally obtaining their lawful product and securing it as their personal property.  I will bow to your point about knowing what I was getting in to, for myself; however, it changes nothing as to whether I think it is right and proper and that I fervently believe that it should be made optional, period.
2017-9-16
Use props
Nigel_
Captain
Flight distance : 388642 ft
United Kingdom
Offline

"Would You Opt Out of DJI's "Geo Fencing"...If You Could?"

Assuming that the drone has been bought for consumer use, this question is effectively asking if you would choose to break the law if you could.  

And then you have to ask the question, do you think other people should be allowed to break the law if they want?

I think for most people it depends on if they think the NFZ restrictions are sensible and in my experience they are either sensible or insufficient.

The only people who seem to be complaining are USA citizens which suggests to me that the USA NFZs are poorly specified, or maybe it says something about the USA citizens themselves!

There was also an issue in Canada earlier in the year but they appear to have got their law changed to an acceptable compromise.  No doubt some people are still dissatisfied but the laws and regulations are never designed to satisfy everyone, there always have to be compromises.

As for DJI, they have implemented the NFZ system on their drones to operate according to the international NFZ database, they don't define the database, if you want the database changed then you need to speak to the people who do define it for each country, FAA, CAA or whatever it is in your country.  Get the database correct and there should be no issues and air disasters should be avoided.
2017-9-17
Use props
Genghis9
Captain
United States
Offline

Nigel_ Posted at 2017-9-17 02:07
"Would You Opt Out of DJI's "Geo Fencing"...If You Could?"

Assuming that the drone has been bought for consumer use, this question is effectively asking if you would choose to break the law if you could.  
I am sorry, but I find your premise here insulting, disingenuous, and more than borders on inflammatory as well as slanderous.  How dare you imply that if someone simply chooses to have full exercise over the use of their lawful property that they are a lawbreaker.  If that is the best you have for an argument, then you have no argument, as all you have done is resort to name-calling.  It is disappointing to say the least that you have to take an honest debate and drag it down to the level you have done, which is entirely unacceptable.
  
You know nothing of me.  Would it matter if you knew I were law enforcement, or a judge, or an employee of an airspace control agency?  Since you do not know that, and cannot prove otherwise shows the weakness of your accusation, or is it your habit to accuse people of law enforcement and government as being lawbreakers too?  Further, have you ever heard of the axiom about “assuming” things, if you have then enough said, if you have not decorum prevents me from explaining it to you, however, maybe you should educate yourself to it.  
  
Because you are comfortable in living under a nanny state environment where you have limited rights and no choice in how you use your hard earned property nor the ability to exercise its use as you see fit WITHIN the boundaries of your county’s laws don’t’ expect others to feel similarly.  Many people on this planet cherish liberty and freedom.  As a wise statesman once proclaimed, those willing to sacrifice liberty and freedom for security, deserve neither.  I find it interesting that you would qualify your remarks about a purchase made for consumer purposes is somehow different from other purposes, which only further demonstrates your narrow view of this debate.  What if a person purchased their product as a hobby and then found that there was a way to make a living with it as a private entrepreneur, then what.  Oh gee, we are sorry, you see some country far away says you cannot do that without asking permission from them first, plus going through your own nation’s process too.  If that alone doesn’t show the short coming of your argument I don’t’ know what does.  It borders on pathetic, that someone is so willing to abdicate their freedoms to a corporation so willingly all under the assertion that somehow it makes the world a warmer and fuzzier place.  Well I hate to break it to you, there are sheep, sheep dogs, and wolves, I do not intend to be a sheep, and my life has more than demonstrated that I am no wolf.  Thankfully, the great Lord above gave us all the choice about how we chose to live our life, I would hope more choose wisely and refuse to be a sheep.
  
Further, your speculation is amusing, you infer issues within the US, but yet you do not know.  Last I checked if you are choosing to debate a point then maybe you should educate yourself first, you should reserve your uninformed comments until you know better.  US airspace is well regulated, maybe too much so, and it is on par with any other nation on earth.  If you knew anything about ICAO regulations, it appears you do not, you would know that the USA was a leader in developing airspace rules that are the foundation of ICAO procedures.  The sovereignty of a nation is not up for negotiation; otherwise, you don’t have a nation, meaning each nation has its own rules, not international regulations.  Sure most are based on international rule sets to ensure standardization but they still regulate it themselves, no other government, or foreign entity.  Lastly, I find it utopianesk to think that all you have to do is “get the database correct and there should be no issues and air disasters should be avoided,” yes most assuredly and sprinkle some ferry dust around and we will solve world hunger and achieve world peace.
  In closing, I most adamantly protest your name-calling as an argument and find you wanting for a solid position from which to make your point.  For the record I want full control over my property, the freedom to operate it as I choose “within the law,” and live my life in peace & freedom; I don’t expect that will happen, but I have spent my life fighting for that end for my God, my country, our allies, my family, and all people wanting liberty!
2017-9-17
Use props
Genghis9
Captain
United States
Offline

Geebax Posted at 2017-9-16 15:45
**** The posts are shielded ****

I feel it necessary to respond to the masking of GeeBax's post.
I do not know the reason why it was shielded, one can only speculate.  I can say this, with certainty, what GeeBax stated was not inappropriate in my opinion and did not appear to be derogatory either.  While I may not fully agree with his comments, he has a right to make his points as much as anyone else does, and he did so in a proper way, I respect that.  I would hope that we can have his comments reinstated so everyone can see them and make their own choice about his remarks and this debate.

Moderators please reconsider, if it is simply certain words, names, or phrases then at least allow him to reword or just mask those problematic items.
Thank you
2017-9-17
Use props
embayweather
Captain
Flight distance : 556667 ft
United Kingdom
Offline

Genghis9 I am thankful that you have brought this issue to a poll as it was long overdue. May I perhaps add a third reason why DJI are implementing these NFZ features inasmuch as they may have no choice. Certainly within the UK and possibly the EU (If I can use them in teh same sentence), upconing proposals make it a requirement for drone manufacturers to include such areas and prevent pilots going in to them.  Consequently DJI are simply adapting their product to make it saleable in our market at least. I know little about the US market to comment sensibly, but it is not impossible to believe that a similar arrangement is or will occur in the US and proabably other countries.
For my part I am glad that they are there as they act as a reminder to me not to be there. My flight planning always includes looking at whether there are any NFZs but a reminder when I stray is always welcome.
Sadly, there are many DJI drone owners who are not forum members, and often may not have even heard of and NFZ or airway classification, perhaps suggesting that training for all drone owners would bring about more responsible drone ownership for everyone
2017-9-17
Use props
hallmark007
Captain
Flight distance : 4751657 ft
  • >>>
Ireland
Offline

Genghis9 Posted at 2017-9-17 03:23
I feel it necessary to respond to the masking of GeeBax's post.
I do not know the reason why it was shielded, one can only speculate.  I can say this, with certainty, what GeeBax stated was not inappropriate in my opinion and did not appear to be derogatory either.  While I may not fully agree with his comments, he has a right to make his points as much as anyone else does, and he did so in a proper way, I respect that.  I would hope that we can have his comments reinstated so everyone can see them and make their own choice about his remarks and this debate.

I fully endorse what you said, this has to be a mistake, when I look around these forums and see what people get away with it's crazy, this debate has so far been conducted in a very fair and respectful manner , for a moderator to come in and shield Geebax comment is nothing short of disgraceful particularly to one who is actively taking part and helping others.
Reinstate the comment please and let the debate continue.
2017-9-17
Use props
Genghis9
Captain
United States
Offline

Tip: The post by the administrator or moderators shield
2017-9-17
Use props
Genghis9
Captain
United States
Offline

embayweather Posted at 2017-9-17 03:49
Genghis9 I am thankful that you have brought this issue to a poll as it was long overdue. May I perhaps add a third reason why DJI are implementing these NFZ features inasmuch as they may have no choice. Certainly within the UK and possibly the EU (If I can use them in teh same sentence), upconing proposals make it a requirement for drone manufacturers to include such areas and prevent pilots going in to them.  Consequently DJI are simply adapting their product to make it saleable in our market at least. I know little about the US market to comment sensibly, but it is not impossible to believe that a similar arrangement is or will occur in the US and proabably other countries.
For my part I am glad that they are there as they act as a reminder to me not to be there. My flight planning always includes looking at whether there are any NFZs but a reminder when I stray is always welcome.
Sadly, there are many DJI drone owners who are not forum members, and often may not have even heard of and NFZ or airway classification, perhaps suggesting that training for all drone owners would bring about more responsible drone ownership for everyone

embayweather,
Fair enough, I do see your points and understand them.  I still don't completely agree for reasons already stated.  For one, I believe those reminders, as you called them, can still be instituted without the draconian controls/restrictions placed along with them.  However, I will fully concede to you that certain government entities such the UK and EU (sorry no slight intended to you Englanders there) have or are mandating these restrictions.  Alas if so that would be too bad, as current technology is allowing corporations and governments to act as big brother over us and I don't find that palatable.  I also would not be surprised to find that the FAA is doing the same but as of yet I have not seen this to be fact.
Sadly, you may be correct now.  It may be time to license (thus require training) UAV operators since these machines can do so much more than your father's RC aircraft of days past.
It's a brave new world we are in with this, and we owe it to ourselves to control the debate and ensure we keep our freedom as much as possible while bowing to the needs for safety and the rule of law.
Thank you for the compliment and your honest remarks.
2017-9-17
Use props
KEDDK
Captain
Flight distance : 1133038 ft
Denmark
Offline

Genghis9 Posted at 2017-9-17 03:23
I feel it necessary to respond to the masking of GeeBax's post.
I do not know the reason why it was shielded, one can only speculate.  I can say this, with certainty, what GeeBax stated was not inappropriate in my opinion and did not appear to be derogatory either.  While I may not fully agree with his comments, he has a right to make his points as much as anyone else does, and he did so in a proper way, I respect that.  I would hope that we can have his comments reinstated so everyone can see them and make their own choice about his remarks and this debate.

Not sure what is going on, i can see that you also have a post cleared.

The post from Geebax can still be read just a few posts above in your reply.
2017-9-17
Use props
Nigel_
Captain
Flight distance : 388642 ft
United Kingdom
Offline

Are you suggesting that no fly zones over airport runways should not exist?
Or are you suggesting that the no fly zones should exist but should be controlled by fines and jail sentences after incidents instead of the incidents being prevented from happening by firmware?

The first option is like saying that speed limits should not exist on our roads, the second is like saying that we shouldn't be forced to display licence plates on our cars!
2017-9-17
Use props
KEDDK
Captain
Flight distance : 1133038 ft
Denmark
Offline

Nigel_ Posted at 2017-9-17 02:07
"Would You Opt Out of DJI's "Geo Fencing"...If You Could?"

Assuming that the drone has been bought for consumer use, this question is effectively asking if you would choose to break the law if you could.  

I am not american and i complain, very much - actually i think my very first post in those forums was about that screewed up NFZ implementation, please check out the pictures in that post and the following posts.

DJI does not get the information from the legal sources of NFZ definition, at least not those DJI has implemented from Denmark.

And No it is not at all saying hte we want to break the laws, it is to make sure that we're not grounded the day we miss connection to china or for what ever reason there would be we had to be flying in those areas, that could be on request or acceptance from local authorities.

I don't know what interrest you have in the way to protect this system and it's implementation but the way you  interpret our answers tell me you must have some, if not you must have a very narrow sight if not you can see from our point that something is wrong here.

Edit: misssing link added
2017-9-17
Use props
Landbo
First Officer
Flight distance : 502792 ft
Denmark
Offline

For reflection !!!

Democracy is "Freedom Under Responsibility" and does not sound very funny in many ears, but it's like being grown: If you're not going to be intolerable to its surroundings and appear to be self-absorbed and immature - or maybe even hurt others - you're need to take into account the freedom of others when delivering their own.

The alternative is that there is someone who interferes with how to behave.

If we all want to enjoy both freedom, peace of mind and opportunities, we need to take responsibility for our actions ourselves. Democracy is based on the fact that we can figure it out.

On the contrary, the totalitarian rulers are based on the idea that people can not figure out themselves. Neither for their privacy nor their public life.

Any democracy begins with personal responsibility.

Regards Leif.

2017-9-17
Use props
KEDDK
Captain
Flight distance : 1133038 ft
Denmark
Offline

Nigel_ Posted at 2017-9-17 07:01
Are you suggesting that no fly zones over airport runways should not exist?
Or are you suggesting that the no fly zones should exist but should be controlled by fines and jail sentences after incidents instead of the incidents being prevented from happening by firmware?

I would say that what we are claming is that the way the NFZ system is implemented would be the same as:

If you want to take your car out  on public roadspace where you risk meeting other traffic and could cause an accident then you have to ask the car producer if you can be allowed beforehand.
Do you get a ok to drive, then you better wish that no weather conditions or other issues would delay your drive, if so you could be grounded in the middle of the road and not be able to drive back for some days before you get a ok to go again.

Like in car driving where i have a license to drive i have a license to fly my UAV, those are issued by authorities from my country and when doing both i am expected to follow the rules.
2017-9-17
Use props
Nigel_
Captain
Flight distance : 388642 ft
United Kingdom
Offline

KEDDK Posted at 2017-9-17 07:38
I would say that what we are claming is that the way the NFZ system is implemented would be the same as:

If you want to take your car out  on public roadspace where you risk meeting other traffic and could cause an accident then you have to ask the car producer if you can be allowed beforehand.

It is more like building a fence around the airport so that cars can't drive down the runway!

Of course most law abiding people wouldn't drive down the runway anyway, but I did watch someone do so without permission from air traffic control a few months ago - they had Learner plates on the car!
2017-9-17
Use props
KEDDK
Captain
Flight distance : 1133038 ft
Denmark
Offline

Nigel_ Posted at 2017-9-17 08:09
It is more like building a fence around the airport so that cars can't drive down the runway!

Of course most law abiding people wouldn't drive down the runway anyway, but I did watch someone do so without permission from air traffic control a few months ago - they had Learner plates on the car!

But would you know if they had got permission from the car producer ?

Yes someone is doing stupid things, hopefully they get stopped and their punishment without anyone gets harmed by their stupidity, my sight regarding this NFZ circus does not change whatever.
2017-9-17
Use props
hallmark007
Captain
Flight distance : 4751657 ft
  • >>>
Ireland
Offline

Landbo Posted at 2017-9-17 07:28
For reflection !!!

Democracy is "Freedom Under Responsibility" and does not sound very funny in many ears, but it's like being grown: If you're not going to be intolerable to its surroundings and appear to be self-absorbed and immature - or maybe even hurt others - you're need to take into account the freedom of others when delivering their own.

Democracy is many things to many people.

When you make demands, you should understand that in a democracy, it is impossible for everyone to achieve everything they want.

Democracy requires compromise.  Groups with different interests and opinions must be willing to sit down with one another and negotiate.

In a democracy, one group does not always win everything it wants.  Different combinations of groups win on different issues.  Over time, everyone wins something.

If one group is always excluded and fails to be heard, it may turn against democracy in anger and frustration.

2017-9-17
Use props
Nauticalman
lvl.2

United States
Offline

When CHINESE corporations make laws in the United States, it is nothing short of overthrowing the U.S. Government and its governing agencies.  Why is the U.S. allowing this to happen???  Oh... thats right... b. because the U.S. has to constantly keep borrowing money form China to keep the party going, that's why.  LOL, silly me, to think america's government has any power in this world.
2017-9-17
Use props
hallmark007
Captain
Flight distance : 4751657 ft
  • >>>
Ireland
Offline

Nauticalman Posted at 2017-9-17 08:35
When CHINESE corporations make laws in the United States, it is nothing short of overthrowing the U.S. Government and its governing agencies.  Why is the U.S. allowing this to happen???  Oh... thats right... b. because the U.S. has to constantly keep borrowing money form China to keep the party going, that's why.  LOL, silly me, to think america's government has any power in this world.

I thought this debate would descend into a China V USA debacle.

China have made no laws that I know of in the USA.
2017-9-17
Use props
Genghis9
Captain
United States
Offline

KEDDK Posted at 2017-9-17 06:59
Not sure what is going on, i can see that you also have a post cleared.

The post from Geebax can still be read just a few posts above in your reply.

KEDDK,
I'm not sure either?  Seriously, when I was in the middle of making that response it seemed like something just glitched all of a sudden and poof it was shielded, rather strange is all I can say and I've received no indication otherwise to say why.  However, I fixed it in my own way and as far as from me nothing was really stopped...
2017-9-17
Use props
Genghis9
Captain
United States
Offline

Nauticalman Posted at 2017-9-17 08:35
When CHINESE corporations make laws in the United States, it is nothing short of overthrowing the U.S. Government and its governing agencies.  Why is the U.S. allowing this to happen???  Oh... thats right... b. because the U.S. has to constantly keep borrowing money form China to keep the party going, that's why.  LOL, silly me, to think america's government has any power in this world.

Nauticalman,
I love your passion, I truly do!  However, please let's stick to the things we know for sure.  I can argue that China's economy needs us as bad as we have unnecessarily grown dependent on them.  Further, no laws have been created and like it or not it is plausible, at present, to think that the FAA has worked behind the scenes to force this on us in order to not look like the bad guy.  If that latter is correct then sooner rather than later if we expose as much then we have a chance to force that to stop and reverse it.  Right now there is no proof either way, and just saying it is not good enough.  For the present let us just have a healthy debate using our brains and grit, leaving the hyperbole at home while attempting to learn, understand, and convince.  
Please and Thank You
2017-9-17
Use props
MrDave
lvl.2
Flight distance : 1159331 ft
United States
Offline

I could easily see the FAA ban the sale of drones that do not incorporate geofencing of No Fly Zones. Especially drones with extended flight times, High resolution camera systems, and the ability to manipulate payloads with being able to carry a significant amount of weight. So when you ask does the foreign company have a right to enact geofencing within their product, I say they have to follow the guidelines that the destination country set up for them to follow or they will get denied importation permits for the products. So if you want to fly Area 51, unimpeded, I suggest you build your own drone and program it yourself and not buy a retail drone that has to comply with the requirements the FAA puts on retail drones.
2017-9-17
Use props
solentlife
Captain
Flight distance : 1087530 ft
Latvia
Offline

If you don't like Geofencing ... use Litchi.

Basically because of stupid idiots who disregard Air Nav Orders and other safety issues - DJI has taken responsible action of adding NFZ / Geofencing to the FW.

Remember the White House Lawn a few years back ? That was an off-duty Secret Service guy with a DJI .... there's load more incidents that lead up to this implementation.

But like I said - use Litchi if you don't want Geofencing.

When I fly at the local airport ... instead of going through hassle of getting release from DJI to add to my FW ... I just use Litchi ... simple.

Nigel
2017-9-17
Use props
Nigel_
Captain
Flight distance : 388642 ft
United Kingdom
Offline

KEDDK Posted at 2017-9-17 08:16
But would you know if they had got permission from the car producer ?

Yes someone is doing stupid things, hopefully they get stopped and their punishment without anyone gets harmed by their stupidity, my sight regarding this NFZ circus does not change whatever.

They didn't need permission from the car producer!

That airfield doesn't have a NFZ, I could even fly my Phantom down the runway if I tried.  Of course the rules say that I need to get permission from the tower to do so, although I'm not sure the car was actually breaking any laws since there were no aeroplanes using any of the runways at the time and they didn't break in since the airfield is unfenced.
2017-9-17
Use props
Genghis9
Captain
United States
Offline

Nigel_ Posted at 2017-9-17 07:01
Are you suggesting that no fly zones over airport runways should not exist?
Or are you suggesting that the no fly zones should exist but should be controlled by fines and jail sentences after incidents instead of the incidents being prevented from happening by firmware?

No...are you suggesting I do not have a brain between my ears, well of course you are…my words not yours.
Yes - Exactly, they have and must be controlled by whatever means that sovereign nations decide (airspace rules) for its citizenry and the citizenry will accept and understand.  It is called democracy and representation...
Fundamentally that's what we have here, property restrictions without representation i.e. choice
Ever hear of Skynet?  If not check it out, and nope I am not saying that is where we are at or even going.  However, that story had a moral to it, same as Orwell's 1984, “Big Brother is Watching You.”  Man lives by God’s will, and man governs man not by machines whether they are proxies or not.  Just because the technology exists does not mean it should be used.  So we have the ability to release smallpox on mankind, so we should use it on enemies of mankind, namely man.  The slope of logic in things of this matter is indeed both steep and slippery.  That is why whenever possible erroring on the side of freedom is best; I do not intend to quietly wake up in a gilded cage police state just because we have the technology to right every wrong.
“The first option is like saying that speed limits should not exist on our roads, the second is like saying that we shouldn't be forced to display licence plates on our cars!”  >Sorry you have that fundamentally wrong.  The 1st option is saying we have speed limit laws, and they should exist.  The 2nd option is saying we should follow those speed limits because it’s the law!  NOT we should build cars that follow the speed limit because we are too stupid to do it for ourselves!
I think that right there breaks it down as simply as you can to the difference in viewpoints and philosophy on this subject.  Learn from it what you may…
2017-9-17
Use props
GrangerFX
First Officer
Flight distance : 817713 ft
United States
Offline

This is a really complicated subject. For some areas I am happy that they are restricted (military bases, secret/sensitive areas, prisons, etc.) For other areas, I would like a warning but no restrictions such as airports. Just give me a list of airports, how close they are and their size/utilization. Put a hard restriction over the airport itself. Restrict airspace around major airports. As it stands the geofence is not implemented correctly. I get a blaring warning that I must have permission to fly where I am if I am simply not connected to the Internet and in an area where data has not been downloaded. That's not useful at all.

It is clear that DJI just slopped together their geofencing feature. It uses circular areas instead of polygons. It has dangerous data gathering features. It is not implementing any actual rules (the FAA does not have any rules governing geofencing in drone software currently). The whole thing feels like a political bandaid. DJI knows that they are the target for lawyers and lawmakers and they become a bigger target the more money they make. There are many things they could do to actually make their drones less of a security threat. A big one would be to detect if the drone is carying anything it should not be. A fixed mass would look like the motors are working too hard to keep the drone in the air. A swinging mass would create osselations in the flight that could be detected. If either thing was detected, the drone should report a hardware fault and restrict the range to 100 meters or something. That would not affect the vast majority of drone pilots and would be something real DJI could point to that they had done to prevent its drones from being used as flying bombs.
2017-9-17
Use props
Genghis9
Captain
United States
Offline

Landbo Posted at 2017-9-17 07:28
For reflection !!!

Democracy is "Freedom Under Responsibility" and does not sound very funny in many ears, but it's like being grown: If you're not going to be intolerable to its surroundings and appear to be self-absorbed and immature - or maybe even hurt others - you're need to take into account the freedom of others when delivering their own.

WELL SAID and Well Spoken!!!
Here Here
Thank you
2017-9-17
Use props
Genghis9
Captain
United States
Offline

hallmark007 Posted at 2017-9-17 08:25
Democracy is many things to many people.

When you make demands, you should understand that in a democracy, it is impossible for everyone to achieve everything they want.

Excellent Points hallmark007 I applaud your comments!
2017-9-17
Use props
Genghis9
Captain
United States
Offline

MrDave Posted at 2017-9-17 09:12
I could easily see the FAA ban the sale of drones that do not incorporate geofencing of No Fly Zones. Especially drones with extended flight times, High resolution camera systems, and the ability to manipulate payloads with being able to carry a significant amount of weight. So when you ask does the foreign company have a right to enact geofencing within their product, I say they have to follow the guidelines that the destination country set up for them to follow or they will get denied importation permits for the products. So if you want to fly Area 51, unimpeded, I suggest you build your own drone and program it yourself and not buy a retail drone that has to comply with the requirements the FAA puts on retail drones.

MrDave
Fundamentally I might agree with you, but at the present you are only speculating as to whether the FAA has done what you imply.  I say they may have but then they may not have, we should know for sure first, and I suspect that they have not, my opinion only.  Not all of mankind's ails are solved with technology and building fences can make for good neighbors but not necessarily for penning in people.
I say that they have to follow national guidelines too, when they are made and only when they are made not before.
Sooo, exactly where is Area 51, do you know?
2017-9-17
Use props
Genghis9
Captain
United States
Offline

solentlife Posted at 2017-9-17 09:31
If you don't like Geofencing ... use Litchi.

Basically because of stupid idiots who disregard Air Nav Orders and other safety issues - DJI has taken responsible action of adding NFZ / Geofencing to the FW.

Nigel,
That's the spirit!
Sooo, is it safe to assume that you don't go around breaking the law or flying over classified military installations or buzzing your neighbors house?  Imagine that, a peaceful law abiding citizen that has the means to disregard the DJI NFZ system and he is still free and not in jail or running from the law, amazing.
2017-9-17
Use props
GrangerFX
First Officer
Flight distance : 817713 ft
United States
Offline

Genghis9 Posted at 2017-9-17 10:12
MrDave
Fundamentally I might agree with you, but at the present you are only speculating as to whether the FAA has done what you imply.  I say they may have but then they may not have, we should know for sure first, and I suspect that they have not, my opinion only.  Not all of mankind's ails are solved with technology and building fences can make for good neighbors but not necessarily for penning in people.
I say that they have to follow national guidelines too, when they are made and only when they are made not before.

I know exactly where Area 51 is located and I know you really don't want to fly your drone there. I was flying more than 50 miles away and it made me nervous. I made sure I kept the drone below the hilltops. Security around the base, which is north of the nuclear test range, is extremely tight. A friend of mine worked there for a while. Nothing exciting but it was a kind of drone.
2017-9-17
Use props
Genghis9
Captain
United States
Offline

GrangerFX Posted at 2017-9-17 09:49
This is a really complicated subject. For some areas I am happy that they are restricted (military bases, secret/sensitive areas, prisons, etc.) For other areas, I would like a warning but no restrictions such as airports. Just give me a list of airports, how close they are and their size/utilization. Put a hard restriction over the airport itself. Restrict airspace around major airports. As it stands the geofence is not implemented correctly. I get a blaring warning that I must have permission to fly where I am if I am simply not connected to the Internet and in an area where data has not been downloaded. That's not useful at all.

It is clear that DJI just slopped together their geofencing feature. It uses circular areas instead of polygons. It has dangerous data gathering features. It is not implementing any actual rules (the FAA does not have any rules governing geofencing in drone software currently). The whole thing feels like a political bandaid. DJI knows that they are the target for lawyers and lawmakers and they become a bigger target the more money they make. There are many things they could do to actually make their drones less of a security threat. A big one would be to detect if the drone is carying anything it should not be. A fixed mass would look like the motors are working too hard to keep the drone in the air. A swinging mass would create osselations in the flight that could be detected. If either thing was detected, the drone should report a hardware fault and restrict the range to 100 meters or something. That would not affect the vast majority of drone pilots and would be something real DJI could point to that they had done to prevent its drones from being used as flying bombs.

GrangerFX,
Good points and thoughtful too, thank you...
Within your points are ideas to consider towards a reasonable compromise in moving forward with ways to safely control airspace while limiting or preventing the impacts on property rights and freedom.
2017-9-17
Use props
solentlife
Captain
Flight distance : 1087530 ft
Latvia
Offline

Genghis9 Posted at 2017-9-17 10:16
Nigel,
That's the spirit!
Sooo, is it safe to assume that you don't go around breaking the law or flying over classified military installations or buzzing your neighbors house?  Imagine that, a peaceful law abiding citizen that has the means to disregard the DJI NFZ system and he is still free and not in jail or running from the law, amazing.

We don't all live in the US of A .....

You guys have had some of the most idiotic flyers and also constitute a large % of flyers ... allied that to the individual States still acting like separate countries in many ways - means arriving at agreed solution nationwide is virtually impossible ... look at state taxes !!

Idiotic flyers are everywhere - but USA ones make the headlines !!

Nigel
2017-9-17
Use props
hallmark007
Captain
Flight distance : 4751657 ft
  • >>>
Ireland
Offline

KEDDK Posted at 2017-9-17 07:38
I would say that what we are claming is that the way the NFZ system is implemented would be the same as:

If you want to take your car out  on public roadspace where you risk meeting other traffic and could cause an accident then you have to ask the car producer if you can be allowed beforehand.

Using the car as an analogy is not credible, driving your car you are governed by literally hundreds of rules and regulations, you are policed by authorities cctv cameras general public. The penalties for incorrect use of your car can be extremely high with prison being among the deterrents ,yes the rules are set by your government but you are expected to have insurance tax license etc , you are continually scrutinised for all of your driving life. If you don't drive within the rules you are off the road.

Even small manned aircraft are governed by hundreds of rules, these rules are set down by authorities in your country. But they are also governed by international laws which apply to aviation in your country.
If a pilot of a manned aircraft flys into a NFZ without proper permission he will be grounded as soon as it is possible, he will then have to face the consequences of his actions to the appropriate authorities, running the risk of being banned or suspended from flying, these rules and regulations are set down locally as well as internationally, yet pilots are not crying into their beer because some member of their country didn't make the rules.

Drone flying there are many who travel with their drones I'm one of them and if just like big boys aviation if rules are made internationally regarding flying drones and we can all fly under the same umbrella well that suits me fine, I believe rules for flying drones should be made by those in aviation after all they are the experts with a track record for aviation, I also believe they have a vested interest in growing drone flying so they are the ones I would like to see make the rules and regulations and ultimately I believe they will.
Why should we involve our governments in something they know nothing about, when there are plenty of experience bodies out there already..
2017-9-17
Use props
12Next >
Advanced
You need to log in before you can reply Login | Register now

Credit Rules