DJI Calls FAA Data 'Poorly Chosen' and 'Deeply Flawed'

Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
22
Reaction score
5
Age
64
by Alex Cooke March 7, 2017

DJI Calls FAA Data 'Poorly Chosen' and 'Deeply Flawed'


DJI recently issued a white paper expounding upon the relationship between the weight of drones and the risk posed by them, asserting that current FAA regulations are based on "poorly chosen data and deeply flawed assumptions."

The white paper proposes raising the 250-gram threshold that defines drones of the lowest risk to 2.2 kilograms. For reference, the DJI Phantom 4 Pro weight 1.39 kilograms and the Inspire 2 weighs 3.29 kilograms, making the proposed raise in the threshold somewhere above the standard consumer range. The original 250-gram threshold was developed in 2015 during the process of creating registration guidelines for drones. Any drone below this threshold was considered a sufficiently low risk to not warrant registration. Regarding this, however, DJI claims:

While the FAA’s 2015 Registration Task Force (RTF) said drones weighing up to 250 grams posed the lowest risk, further research shows that standard was based on poorly chosen data and deeply flawed assumptions, including an almost 50-year-old model of casualties from a nuclear war that destroys all hospitals. Using more accurate scientific inputs, DJI’s white paper concludes unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) up to 2.2 kilograms can be safely flown with the lowest risk.

DJI Vice President of Policy and Legal Affairs Brendan Schulman says that the 250-gram threshold was created merely for registration, but was inappropriately adopted for the purposes of safety guidelines. The white paper asserts that a 2.2-kilogram line is more appropriate, especially given that issues of the presence of people and pilot aptitude seem to determine the frequency and outcome of safety-related incidents more so than weight. Such thresholds are important as they guide the creation of laws that determine the operational limits that drone flyers must work within.
 
Interesting. DJI is trying to convince the FAA that a 3# hunk of plastic and spinning props (phantom 3 and 4) can be flown with the lowest risk. It would be interesting to see what data they presented to support the 2.2 kgm (5#) cutoff point. Next to last sentence "...the presence of people.... determine outcome." Well, duh, if there is nobody under the bird, not likely to hit anyone! Doesn't seem to help getting the FAA to relax the restriction about flying over people.
 
I'm all for this... If DJI can convince the FAA that it's a low risk then maybe they can relax the laws a little bit more, give people more freedom to fly in parks with out any fines or punishments
 
I 100% agree with DJI. In fact there's is nothing to disagree with. It's a fact. There was no data around during this time so the FAA fell back on old data coming from the 50's I believe. This data has nothing to do with plastic and is based solely on flying shrapnel.

There really needs to be some real testing done so we know what is really going on.
 
There really needs to be some real testing done so we know what is really going on.

In this day & age I'm shocked that there is not and has not been any real testing done about this. If nothing else I'm surprised DJI hasn't taken it on and had it performed to validate their claims.

While I do agree that the plastic etc shouldn't cause any problems I do think the mass and density of the LiPo "could" be a whole other story. Just a guess though.

Maybe we're not as big of an industry as we thought?
 
I appreciate what DJI is attempting. IMHO the biggest threat to public property and public safety are poorly made toy drones coupled with inexperienced operators not the Phantoms, GDUs, Autels, etc. That being said I believe DJI should put more effort into improving themselves. Specifically their customer service. To get up on a soapbox for a moment. I am constantly disappointed by the YouTube videos that review DJI products and never, or hardly ever, even mention the poor or lack of customer service from DJI.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

Mitch
 
In this day & age I'm shocked that there is not and has not been any real testing done about this. If nothing else I'm surprised DJI hasn't taken it on and had it performed to validate their claims.

While I do agree that the plastic etc shouldn't cause any problems I do think the mass and density of the LiPo "could" be a whole other story. Just a guess though.

Maybe we're not as big of an industry as we thought?
Virginia Tech is doing just that - Crashing Drones Into Test Dummies for Safety

Screen Shot 2017-03-10 at 1.02.56 PM✨.png
 
I 100% agree with DJI. In fact there's is nothing to disagree with. It's a fact. There was no data around during this time so the FAA fell back on old data coming from the 50's I believe. This data has nothing to do with plastic and is based solely on flying shrapnel.
Care to cite where you got that from? I know for a fact that your assertions are false but I'm curious about where you saw this. Or think you saw it.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,055
Messages
1,467,298
Members
104,920
Latest member
stovebayen