It appears that the new Mavic 2 drones exceed the EU regulations for a C1 class drone, the lowest level allowed without a full license. They are over by 5 and 7 grams respectively, which is quite unfortunate. Anyone else disappointed by this?

I was initially worried as well but now I have no doubt that DJI has carefully checked that in advance and I trust that they will still fall under the C1 class.

Wachtberger Posted at 2018-8-26 02:48
I was initially worried as well but now I have no doubt that DJI has carefully checked that in advance and I trust that they will still fall under the C1 class.

I’ve considered the 80J condition, but the Mavic 2 also exceeds the 19m/s requirement. While this could be software controlled, an 80J requirement would need to have the Mavic 2 fly at less than 47 Km/h Hhow much less depends on the height and ability to pick up speed on descent to not pass the 80J).

I’ve written to support but have not had a reply yet. We would have traded up our Air, but only if it’s C1 compatible.

The ruling is 80J or 900g.  Its possible the MP2 has an impact energy of <90J at terminal velocity.  People seem to think its maximum forward speed, its not - its terminal velocity which is going to depend on drag and so on.

rpsm Posted at 2018-8-26 02:51
I’ve considered the 80J condition, but the Mavic 2 also exceeds the 19m/s requirement. While this could be software controlled, an 80J requirement would need to have the Mavic 2 fly at less than 47 Km/h Hhow much less depends on the height and ability to pick up speed on descent to not pass the 80J).

I’ve written to support but have not had a reply yet. We would have traded up our Air, but only if it’s C1 compatible.

Not *fly* at less than 47km/h, FALL at less than 47 km/h.

We did a rough guess on the MP1 a while ago elsewhere and came up with 70ish as a figure  (assuming a brick as aerodynamic object size and drag).  Yes the MP2 is heavier but 1/2*mv^2 may mean it doesnt exceed.

Also those regs wont come in for 2+ years by which team we'll be talking about the MP3.

gnirtS Posted at 2018-8-26 03:27
Not *fly* at less than 47km/h, FALL at less than 47 km/h.

We did a rough guess on the MP1 a while ago elsewhere and came up with 70ish as a figure  (assuming a brick as aerodynamic object size and drag).  Yes the MP2 is heavier but 1/2*mv^2 may mean it doesnt exceed.

I’m open to correction, the current proposal document specifies the impact of the drone on a person, it doesn’t mention terminal velocity from a standstill. I do hope you’re right. But this will require a real and official calculation, otherwise the police will just say, 905 grams, sorry we keep it.

I appreciate you’re saying it won’t come into effect, but this isn’t true. First it’s effective for. Early 2019, second, the Member States have 2 years to implement, but a lot of them have already passed regulations matching (or sometimes more restrictive than). We (I use my son’s account) fly in Spain, Ireland, Germany, and Switzerland and I comply with each of their regulations. I want to be sure that I can fly in accordance and be able to do so with safety. I have passed my course in Singapore and will get my certificates here and in the EU when they become available. This isn’t a Brexit conversation. DJI has participated in the EU consultation - which was very open and well conducted - and they obviously ignored the 900g limit on purpose. If they fall under the 80J limit then it would be great if they advertised it (and dealt with the 19/ms limit as well). I get this isn’t an issue for you, but it is for EU Member States.

rpsm Posted at 2018-8-26 03:51
I’m open to correction, the current proposal document specifies the impact of the drone on a person, it doesn’t mention terminal velocity from a standstill. I do hope you’re right. But this will require a real and official calculation, otherwise the police will just say, 905 grams, sorry we keep it.

I appreciate you’re saying it won’t come into effect, but this isn’t true. First it’s effective for. Early 2019, second, the Member States have 2 years to implement, but a lot of them have already passed regulations matching (or sometimes more restrictive than). We (I use my son’s account) fly in Spain, Ireland, Germany, and Switzerland and I comply with each of their regulations. I want to be sure that I can fly in accordance and be able to do so with safety. I have passed my course in Singapore and will get my certificates here and in the EU when they become available. This isn’t a Brexit conversation. DJI has participated in the EU consultation - which was very open and well conducted - and they obviously ignored the 900g limit on purpose. If they fall under the 80J limit then it would be great if they advertised it (and dealt with the 19/ms limit as well). I get this isn’t an issue for you, but it is for EU Member States.

Hi! I’m his son BTW.

rpsm Posted at 2018-8-26 03:51
I’m open to correction, the current proposal document specifies the impact of the drone on a person, it doesn’t mention terminal velocity from a standstill. I do hope you’re right. But this will require a real and official calculation, otherwise the police will just say, 905 grams, sorry we keep it.

I appreciate you’re saying it won’t come into effect, but this isn’t true. First it’s effective for. Early 2019, second, the Member States have 2 years to implement, but a lot of them have already passed regulations matching (or sometimes more restrictive than). We (I use my son’s account) fly in Spain, Ireland, Germany, and Switzerland and I comply with each of their regulations. I want to be sure that I can fly in accordance and be able to do so with safety. I have passed my course in Singapore and will get my certificates here and in the EU when they become available. This isn’t a Brexit conversation. DJI has participated in the EU consultation - which was very open and well conducted - and they obviously ignored the 900g limit on purpose. If they fall under the 80J limit then it would be great if they advertised it (and dealt with the 19/ms limit as well). I get this isn’t an issue for you, but it is for EU Member States

I’m sure DJI will correct their mistake in a V2 version of the Mavic 2.

I suspect they'll 'fix' the 19m/sec ruling easily enough with a castration firmware upgrade to limit it.  You already have CE v FCC and its easy to add a speed limit and other feature restrictions to that.

It should be able to see its category already given its been through CE certification.

The actual document is here:-
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites ... %20No%2001-2018.pdf

If you look at page 16 of it it mentions the 80J.  Then right at the bottom of the page under reference 19 it says:

"19 Kinetic energy transferred to the human body considering the terminal velocity of the UA when falling from an altitude of 120 m"

gnirtS Posted at 2018-8-26 03:59
I suspect they'll 'fix' the 19m/sec ruling easily enough with a castration firmware upgrade to limit it.  You already have CE v FCC and its easy to add a speed limit and other feature restrictions to that.

It should be able to see its category already given its been through CE certification.

Ah, nice one, I missed the footnote (41 pages had my eyes bleeding). OK, time to go calculate, but it would be a good idea if they allowed maximum speed in the restrictions panel, and provided the J on their specs. I’ve written them, let’s see what they see.

FWIW there is a thread on the mavicpilots forum where we do guesstimates for the MP which probably arent MASSIVELY off.  The problem is you need to know a drag coefficient to calculate it which is really hard.  The best guess was a brick like object falling edge on and using those figures.  (assumes a worse case, nose directly down vertical dive when the reality is it'll likely to tumble and spin so be a lot slower).
The MP2 is slightly bigger (more drag) but also heavier.  But then again as its 1/2 mv^2 the extra mass doesnt contribute as much as thought.

I wouldn't be amazed if the 907g weight quoted puts it just under the 80J requirement.  They've been heavily involved in the consultations and so on and theres no way in hell they wouldnt have taken this into consideration.

gnirtS Posted at 2018-8-26 04:07
FWIW there is a thread on the mavicpilots forum where we do guesstimates for the MP which probably arent MASSIVELY off.  The problem is you need to know a drag coefficient to calculate it which is really hard.  The best guess was a brick like object falling edge on and using those figures.  (assumes a worse case, nose directly down vertical dive when the reality is it'll likely to tumble and spin so be a lot slower).
The MP2 is slightly bigger (more drag) but also heavier.  But then again as its 1/2 mv^2 the extra mass doesnt contribute as much as thought.

These are exactly my thoughts as well. They have a permanent representative in Brussels for exactly these issues and therefore I trust that they made sure to have the Mavic 2 being compliant.

DJI Sales have replied to me with the following:
-----
Dear XXX，

Mavic Pro 2 in fact is 907g, For its over the 900g limit for class C1 drones in the EU, we suggest you fly the drones under the new regulations.

Enjoy it,
Thanks.

Best regards,
DJI

rpsm Posted at 2018-8-29 03:48
DJI Sales have replied to me with the following:
-----
Dear XXX，

I am going to receive my Mp2 on next monday and thinking to give it back for a total refund...
Really we can't fly with MP2 in Europe?

Thriller Posted at 2018-8-29 05:39
I am going to receive my Mp2 on next monday and thinking to give it back for a total refund...
Really we can't fly with MP2 in Europe?

The new EASA regulations provide for different classes of drones with different rights, and different licensing requirements. All EU Member States must adopt the regulations within 2 years of passing (estimated by 2021). Some Member States have already started to adopt some parts of the working draft (which has, I understand, just been signed last week and will go to final approval before the end of November). Therefore if you plan to fly it within the regulations of a C1 Class drone - which has a maximum limit of 900g, you cannot use the MP2. However, you can fly it as long as you comply with the C3 regulations, which means "far away from people" and "safety distance from urban areas". So still possible to fly, but you better have a second drone for all the other cool stuff.

Regarding the weight limitations. I'm sure either DJI or a 3rd party battery brand have already seen the business opportunity: launch a line of lighter (-7 grams) batteries in Europe. They can either reduce flight time by some seconds/minute or build the case with lighter materials, at a more expensive price.

Hi, sorry for the troubles that it caused. We will check and forward this scenario with our engineers for further clarification. Again, sorry for the inconvenience.

DJI Tony Posted at 2018-8-29 11:55
Hi, sorry for the troubles that it caused. We will check and forward this scenario with our engineers for further clarification. Again, sorry for the inconvenience.

I cannot believe that a Company like DJI has not sent out any official communication yet. Europe is a great part of their/your business, isn't it?
It's true, we can still fly far away from people with MVC2 but you would indeed loose the best that this new regulation will introduce: the chance of flying over people (following specific good practices).
At the moment, MVC2 cost is not justified for people like me who wants to buy it, being aware it must be my drone for the next 5/7 years. Please let us hear your voice.

DJI Tony Posted at 2018-8-29 11:55
Hi, sorry for the troubles that it caused. We will check and forward this scenario with our engineers for further clarification. Again, sorry for the inconvenience.

Are there any news regarding the topic?

Still no official statement? It seems that the industry will classify their drones in March??

I read this from NPA 2017-05(B)
This substantiates the 80-J threshold value of absorbed kinetic energy as an acceptable one for Class C1. In a collision with a UA, only a fraction of the UA kinetic energy would be transferred to the head. As described further in the text, the kinetic energy absorbed in average by a human head hit by a UA in free fall is estimated to be 46.5 % of the terminal kinetic energy of the UA, expressed as half of the aircraft MTOM multiplied by the square of its terminal velocity (reaching ground). This fractional value
may have been conservatively calculated, and, given the uncertainties of collision dynamics, other assumptions may be possible.
A terminal kinetic energy under 80/0.465 = 172 J for the UA would be therefore allowed. Using a linear approximate relationship between terminal kinetic energy and MTOM (about 48 J for every 250 g of MTOM of relatively small multicopter currently available on the market), the 172-J threshold equates to an MTOM of approximately 900 g.
In conclusion, an MTOM of 900 g can be considered as a good threshold to allow a Class C1 UA to be flown over isolated people. UAS with a greater MTOM could also qualify if the manufacturer demonstrates that the kinetic energy transmitted to the head would be less than 80 J.
page 118 and 119

Thanks for the research! That‘s what I am hoping for - it seems reachable to establish the M2‘s in C1 class

Any news about that. Q3 is coming only some weeks left.

Hi All There is one serious problem with Your consideratios. Doesn’t matter if weight fall in C1 class or not. There is much more requirements for class like nosie levels and carriage of identification system. Also classes are applied to new drones by acredited notified bodys, so ever if any existing drone fulfils class requrements it is not class approved. So it means thatcafet muły 2022 we arę not allowed to fly mavic 2 pro uder „open category”.