True... to a degree. Violating airspace over an airport in a non-dangerous way, with all the searching I have done, has never been charged at all. Only warning. Things like flying over a runway, or in a flight path is a different story. They are frequently treated as accidents and boil down to a lesson for the pilot.
DJI GEO Coming to Your P3 Soon
- Thread starter ianwood
- Start date
What law/laws are you referring to? If you are in the USA you can fly for hobby purposes inside the 5 mile range by simply letting them you will be there.
Your laws may be different, where are you located?
Dji and 3DR are imposing these restrictions to protect their financial interests and are looking out for our interest as well. They don't want some dummies ruining it for everyone. Look at the bad publicity from a drone shutting down the restricted airspace over a fire this past summer. Made national news, not the kind you like to hear. A couple of idiots giving everyone a bad rap.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2015
- Messages
- 470
- Reaction score
- 180
- Age
- 50
I strongly disagree. 1, who says guns are weapons intended to kill? Same media that states that these Evil drones do? This is my WHOLE point. It is PERCEPTION. I do not perceive a gun to kill, but as a means to protect my family and myself. Yet, majority of those who are not in the RC hobby, whats the 1st thing they think when you mention "drone" ???? They explain how they are those bad remote controlled planes that shoot rockets, or spy on them.
2 .As I have never seen a drone actually kill anyone, neither have I with a gun. Its the operator who is responsible for it.
We all know that......FAA and ATF.... That is obvious. .... but yes there are many analogies between the 2
1. an idiot uses it for something not intended for and causes repercussions for those who use it correctly (including registration, restrictions, etc)
2. News media determines what the "less informed" peoples perception even though it may not be right
....thats just a start.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2015
- Messages
- 470
- Reaction score
- 180
- Age
- 50
Ding, Ding, Ding, we have a Winner..... thats the whole point. DJI has No right putting limitations on these other that what the FAA states, any more than that Including Noflyzone.org, or any other database.
........but yet when was the last time you saw a gun leap up off the table and kill someone????????
well you havent heard the news lately have you????
sarcasm 
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
Not on completely on topic but speaking of idiots in the thread [another name removed] where this was posted Drone flying over Phillips 66 Refinery in Linden, New Jersey, crashes into car, police say in regard to some idiot trying to grab a pic of the refinery in question crashed his drone. I was amazed that the reporter mentioned national security and what happened in Paris in the same story as some idiot that crashed his drone trying to get a picture of a refinery. The guy was an idiot for sure but what in the world does his stupid mishap have to do with national security? And to even mention the tragic events in Paris in the same story is utter nonsense not to mention an insult to the families of the poor souls that lost their lives. It would really be refreshing if one of the major news networks took the time to interview and broadcast a story with a representative from the AMA or even an average recreational Phantom Pilot so the public could see that we are not a threat to national security, commercial airlines or the everyday lives of people in which ever country they reside.
The fear mongering is really getting out of control and it will only get worse as 14 year old Jimmy gets a P2 or P3 for Christmas and ends up crashing it or worse hurts himself or someone else due to his parents negligence giving him something that is not a toy and not giving Jimmy proper guidance. I'll get off my soap box now but I can only see things going down hill for all of us and unfortunately I don't have a solution
The fear mongering is really getting out of control and it will only get worse as 14 year old Jimmy gets a P2 or P3 for Christmas and ends up crashing it or worse hurts himself or someone else due to his parents negligence giving him something that is not a toy and not giving Jimmy proper guidance
. I'll get off my soap box now but I can only see things going down hill for all of us and unfortunately I don't have a solution
Infrastructure locations are of national security interest, like an oil refinery.
Agreed but my point was even though it may be an area of national security interest the guy was an idiot and crashed not far from where he took off and to mention what happened in Paris in the same broadcast was ludicrous.
No sir, I do not believe that I have a right to fly in certain places, some of which you pointed out. On the contrary, I am fine with the upcoming NFZ update. Perhaps you misunderstood my point - most likely due to my poor articulation. All I was suggesting was that given the effort and ability of DJI to move beyond their first generation NFZ implementation that DJI could as well put the effort into providing something next generation for flying outside of the simple "first generation" cylinder limits. To see what I am suggesting requires understanding that the 400ft or 500m *above the homepoint* or whatever the case may be is truly "first generation" and was done for simplicity of implementation, not so much for safety as it has been couched. For those who cannot wrap their heads around that premise, then the discussion of "second generation" is also beyond them.
That there is air space where a UAV should never be flown is just common sense, common sense but with the need to put some teeth into it. This new NFZ policy and implementation is common sense and has teeth. However, the implementation as we now have where a UAV cannot exceed 400ft or 500m or whatever the current hardcoded value is in the firmware above (or below) the altitude of the homepoint is ...well, false teeth.
Simple (I hope) example: I have the *need* to fly a waypoint mission that will take video of the conditions of agricultural property, stock, fence lines, feed, water, etc that are beyond visual range (BVR) but should be within the ability of the P3 drone (~15 minute flight time). The mission would fly a drone to a point that is ~2km away from me, rising to an altitude that is ~600m above the home point, never flying more than ~30 to 50m above the ground directly below it, and then flying another ~1.5km horizontally while dropping ~900m from the peak, again the drone never flying more than ~30 to 50m above the ground directly below it. The drone would then record video of the things I have a business recording and return home.
The only time that any other plane would ever be nearby would be if a commercial flight were free-falling from 35000ft to its final resting place. Also, I have on occasion seen Forest Service fire scout planes that were flying in the vicinity, but definitely more than 2,000 ft above ground, and not anywhere near the 100 to 200 ft above ground that my drone might need to go.
How to do this? Having been a software developer for 35+ years (OS/kernel/firmware/apps), I can tell you that it would be involved - the effort would be on par or on scale with this new FPV effort. Perhaps the drone would not accept a WP mission (or anything for that matter) that has waypoints that exceed whatever homepoint-based limits currently in place UNLESS the actual height ABOVE GROUND for the waypoints can be verified as being less than the limits. That can be done either while online, or it can be done pre-mission or perhaps even realtime using cached (and securely signed) maps. This is oversimplification, but a secure implementation of this can and should be done. Other than DJI priority, I don't see any reason why it cannot be done.
No sir, not a flat earth here. And, no, one size (max altitude) does not fit all.
The thing that NO ONE has caught yet is that there is no way anyone knows what this due was doing! Much less knowing that he was after said picture/ That is simply stupid speculation and exaggerated fluff! Then.. we have no idea how far the "crash" was when it happened! For all we know it was 2 miles away from the refinery! Then.. if its not legal to fly there, then how the hell was the news chopper there taking the imaginary picture without also being a national security risk?
Unfortunately, far too many ignorant people believe exactly that. Purpose doesnt define a name. Function does!
I'm not really interested about the american world police - more the terminology drone etc used negatively by the MSM.
I was flying recently & a woman who was walking her dog came over & said ' Is that a drone' No I said it's a quadcopter - this cheered her up & she smiled and went happily on her way
I am not surprised at all if there weren't so many idiots out there doing ridiculous things with their drones maybe this would not of happened so quickly. Flying your drone in Manhattans Time Square and smashing into the Morgan Stanley building was my first indication that this was inevitable let's be honest can you blame them?
Oso
Premium Pilot
Did you intend to direct that towards me, towards Jenny, or was it meant to be a general statement?
Not directed toward anyone just a general statement about flying drones. I am an avid fan I love the hobby but you have to admit that not one of us should be surprised that they're tightening the rules. And addition to the idiot that did the Time Square stunt you also have the fool who flew it in the stadium and crashed In while the stadium was full of people. It was not a matter of if it was just a matter of when. Can you honestly say that anyone should be surprised ?
Thank you for taking the time to write this long post. I think that what you are expecting here is way beyond what a phantom is supposed to do and sold for. It has not the capability on board for that. Simple as that.
This is not because some have succeded in going beyond line of sight that the P3 is able to do it safely. You need to consider other types of drones designed for mapping for example.
Also, there are aviation regulations that you have to go by. They are your first concern when you use a drone. They are not flexible and if you really need to bind them to your needs, you have to follow what the gov put in place for this type of request.
Writing softwares is one thing but there are many other things to consider here, and this doesn't exclude knowing the possibilities of the machine and the FAA / CAA regulations. For this matter apparemment you need some information in both of them. And other things as well but It would rise other discussions.
Put simply, If it really is what you want to do, you got the wrong machine.
Similar threads
