DJI GEO Coming to Your P3 Soon

[John N Kronyak]

Not that I disagree with you, but I think you need to let dictionary.com know that they are wrong that since DJI P3 does do what is in the definition below, that they are not to include it because its a quadcopter instead........
drone
[drohn]
noun
1.
the male of the honeybee and other bees, stingless and making nohoney.
2.

1. an unmanned aircraft or ship that can navigate autonomously,without human control or beyond line of sight:
   the GPS of a U.S. spy drone.
2. (loosely) any unmanned aircraft or ship that is guided remotely:
   a radio-controlled drone.

3.
a person who lives on the labor of others; parasitic loafer.


Once again this goes back to my original comparison with guns. PERCEPTION is key

Agreed. Words have meanings and many never find out what the meaning is.

 

[III% Streve]

Streve - Your example brings up the point that a valid waypoint A doesn't necessarily imply an uninhibited path to a valid waypoint B. The purpose of signed waypoints is nothing more than to say that "this waypoint, although it may be outside of an otherwise system-implemented limit - is valid - and the UAV can set its course to *attempt* to fly there - that the UAV can be in the air space represented by the waypoint at the specified altitude"

So, yes, you can still actually setup a mission with valid signed waypoints that would crash your UAV.

It is up to the pilot/operator to use maps that actually SHOW impediments like the peak in between points A and B that you used in your example when setting up waypoints - regardless of whether planning while online or offline. ...and then setting additional waypoints to avoid flying INTO such objects. At least you would hope. Validation of all signed waypoints specified by the pilot/operator is performed prior to a successful mission upload/execution, not in-flight.

No realtime calculations needed other than those currently being calculated.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your example (which I have thought through several similar ones already), or maybe I am not being clear in my overly simplistic explanation.

I think we are not on the same train of thought.. I thought I had figured out what you were say, or what you wanted to happen. But, and maybe its that I didnt set up the example very well, we now Im lost again. I will admit that I just woke up from a rather abrupt onset of crazy exhaustion. Maybe thats it.

 

[Lonewolf]

Unless I missed it, I have a question. In the video he mentions that we'll be able to "Unlock" a NFZ. However, there seems to have been no mention if the NFZ would be "Re-locked" again after a flight. Does this mean that if I were to "Unlock" a NFZ it would remain unlocked permanently for me or do I have to "Unlock" it each time I wish to fly in that NFZ.

 

[bearmikie]

I just checked my address near Sacramento, California. It showed half of my city covered with one of the yellow warning circles. Touching the circle shows why it's there and who to call. AirMap says its Marv Skie–Lincoln County Airport in Tea, South Dakota. That's 1650 miles away. Yikes! If their database is so inaccurate, this should be interesting to say the least.

HayOso you in Rancho? I'm at Arden n Eastern

 

[Gary E]

Let's not forget the class E air space that figures into the airports radius too. The map gets very colorful and busy.

Yes, but it's not control tower airspace, like B, C and D.

 

[Mario_SB]

I think DJI is taking the right step at regulating itself before the government does it for them. Think about that for a moment. It's all about accountability and it's a step in the right direction.

 

[Meta4]

I think DJI is taking the right step at regulating itself before the government does it for them. Think about that for a moment. It's all about accountability and it's a step in the right direction.

That's not what DJI are planning at all.
So many people assume they know what this is about.
Here's what's really planned.

 

[Mario_SB]

That's not what DJI are planning at all.
So many people assume they know what this is about.
Here's what's really planned.

That's not what DJI are planning at all.
So many people assume they know what this is about.
Here's what's really planned.

Meta4, that was rude. I just watched that same video. How can you say that's not what they are planning?

1) DJI was asked if this is some form of government (FAA) mandate. The lawyer guy responded with a flat out "No". This is the industries approach at fixing potential problems. I take it DJI is part of the industry.

2) Geofencing and the ability to bypass with your CC information = Accountability. If there is an investigation they will be able to track down who was responsible. How is that not taking accountability for your own actions as being the point of all this??

 

[Meta4]

DJI aren't doing any regulation (except for TFRs)
They are passing the responsibility on to the users rather than simply locking the user out.

 

[bobmyers]

Meta4, that was rude. I just watched that same video. How can you say that's not what they are planning?

1) DJI was asked if this is some form of government (FAA) mandate. The lawyer guy responded with a flat out "No". This is the industries approach at fixing potential problems. I take it DJI is part of the industry.

2) Geofencing and the ability to bypass with your CC information = Accountability. If there is an investigation they will be able to track down who was responsible. How is that not taking accountability for your own actions as being the point of all this??

Huh?

 

[Mario_SB]

DJI aren't doing any regulation (except for TFRs)
They are passing the responsibility on to the users rather than simply locking the user out.

Hmmm... When DJI decides on including TFRs or whatever into their software code through a firmware upgrade then I see that as a company who is regulating the abilities of what it's products can and cannot do. That is what I meant by "regulating". The government did not tell them that they had to do it. It is is simply DJI's initiative to do so and by doing so they are at the same time making sure that there is some accountability on behalf of it's users. That was the point I was trying to make.

 

[Mario_SB]

Huh?View attachment 36515

Confused? Me too. I didn't like Meta's response to my comment. lol

 

[bobmyers]

Hmmm... When DJI decides on including TFRs or whatever into their software code through a firmware upgrade then I see that as a company who is regulating the abilities of what it's products can and cannot do. That is what I meant by "regulating". The government did not tell them that they had to do it. It is is simply DJI's initiative to do so. That was the point I was trying to make.

Which is pretty Smart on their point to try to advance the idea that "drones" can and do need to be used in restricted areas, so they are providing the technology and means of accomplishing this within existing laws and regulation-- ultimately, the responsibility lies with the "pilot" or operator, so the accountability has to be there. Pretty easy to understand.

 

[bobmyers]

Confused? Me too. I didn't like Meta's response to my comment. lol

I was confused by your reply to Meta

 

[barefootbeachcombing]

Confused? Me too. I didn't like Meta's response to my comment. lol

It's okay if you "didn't like" Meta's response but that doesn't make his post "rude".

 

[Mario_SB]

Which is pretty Smart on their point to try to advance the idea that "drones" can and do need to be used in restricted areas, so they are providing the technology and means of accomplishing this within existing laws and regulation-- ultimately, the responsibility lies with the "pilot" or operator, so the accountability has to be there. Pretty easy to understand.

I agree. I mean when you own 70% of the market then it's pretty much your responsibility to step up.

I was confused by your reply to Meta

Oh.. His response to my earlier post implied that I didn't know what I was talking about and that I was making assumptions.

 

[Mario_SB]

It's okay if you "didn't like" Meta's response but that doesn't make his post "rude".

Perhaps I took it a little too personal. It just felt that way... Sorry Meta.

 

[bobmyers]

I agree. I mean when you own 70% of the market then yo


Oh.. His response to my earlier post implied that I didn't know what I was talking about and that I was making assumptions.

Most of us don't know a lot about this issue and when we dont know-- we all make assumptions -- been there and done that--

 

[Mario_SB]

Most of us don't know a lot about this issue and when we dont know-- we all make assumptions -- been there and done that--

Agreed.

 

[Meta4]

Hmmm... When DJI decides on including TFRs or whatever into their software code through a firmware upgrade then I see that as a company who is regulating the abilities of what it's products can and cannot do. That is what I meant by "regulating". The government did not tell them that they had to do it. It is is simply DJI's initiative to do so and by doing so they are at the same time making sure that there is some accountability on behalf of it's users. That was the point I was trying to make.

DJI are planning to free up the regulation that already applies to the Phantom 3 - not increase it.
Right now there are owners that can't turn on their Phantoms to do a simple check flight in their back yard because they live within one of the numerous (and sometimes invalid) mapped NFZs.
There are professionals that can get all the appropriate approvals but can't do a completely legal flight because of the existing regulation enforcement in the P3 or Inspire.
What DJI is proposing is to reduce this level of enforcement and give the owner some ability to determine if it is safe for them to fly rather than simply locking them out with no way to do a completely safe and legal flight.