DJI Mandatory, uninterruptible actions are wrong, legally actionable

Or in the case of the DC area, a F-22 scrambles out of Joint Base Andrews and intercepts. You have no idea what you're talking about. An incursion into a NFZ will get a licensed pilot reviewed or cited. You are expected to know of their existence and not intrude. At. All.

Don't presume what to know and don't know.
That's D.C., that's the very extreme. Not likely to accidentally stray there. You didn't read my situation. It was in a part of a boring city during a boring time and the FAA had no NFS or TFR in place at the time. Didn't break a NFZ, accidentally or intentionally. Not asking to change NFZs, asking, as a pilot, to retain control of my craft at all times.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
 
I have to agree with the OP here. I've been flying RC for about 8 years now and just got into FPV quads a year ago. I've been biased against DJI and autonomous style multi-rotors since the beginning, for exactly this reason. These autonomous systems might seem awesome to people with no manual flying experience, but to someone that is used to giving commands and having commands followed without having to pass committee review, they are very unnerving. I remember after first receiving my Mavic I was reading on another message board about someone whose Mavic crashed into the side of his house as he watched helplessly. I asked why he didn't simply switch into atti mode and manually stop it... well that isn't possible. To me that's insane. ANY automated control should have provisions to be easily overridden. What if the craft is headed toward a group of people, expensive property, onto a highway, etc.? I'm the one that's going to be held accountable for the results of DJI's glitchy software. Until software and hardware are capable of understanding and handling ALL extenuating circumstances, DJI needs to include provisions for absolute override at any time.
 
The reaction to flying into the NFZ will depend on the reason that the NFZ exists. If you fly into the NFZ over Disney World, the penalty maybe won't be as severe. If you fly into the NFZ at DC, you most likely will be arrested. I witnessed first hand what happens if you fly into the TFR that follows the president. I had already landed because I knew about the TFR times. Another pilot apparently didn't check the TFR's and took off into it. He was arrested.
^This.

First, I apologize to the community for my uncivil tone earlier. By way of explanation, net "experts" that are anything but really push my buttons.

The fact is, how serious an NFZ violation is depends on the NFZ. The vast majority of NFZs are inconsequential if breached accidentally and briefly. For that reason, no punitive or corrective action would ever be taken, and no one here should fly in fear of such draconian law enforcement.

Similar to jaywalking when there are no cars in sight anywhere on the road. You simply are not going to be cited by an LEO for that, and if you were, you would very very likely win a dismissal in court if you pursued it.

Break the exact same law in the exact same place at the exact same time of day except with heavy traffic, and that same cop nearby is very likely to cite you, and you'd be held responsible in court if you fight it.

This is why we have judges and courts. To provide discretion, and apply reason accounting for mitigating factors in enforcing the law.

You should never PLAN to fly into an NFZ without prior authorization. However, if you should accidentally find yourself in a relatively inconsequential one, nothing is going to happen to you legally, and you should be able to fly out as soon as you know. That's what the FAA and the aviation community expect.

Alternatively, if a TFR is in place because of the president, I just wouldn't fly anywhere near there at all until it was gone.
 
What if the craft is headed toward a group of people, expensive property, onto a highway, etc.? I'm the one that's going to be held accountable for the results of DJI's glitchy software.
Ultimately you would not be, but it would probably be a legal fight with DJI. In the end, though, it is DJI that is liable under the law when it is their software that is controlling the flight and operation of the AC.

This is why DJI really needs to reconsider this -- for their own skin. It's only a matter of time before this situation results in someone getting hurt, and then it will become a very big deal for DJI.

DJI has nothing legally to lose by allowing the pilot to continue to control the AC. In fact, they're protecting themselves by keeping the pilot responsible for any consequences of flying the AC.
 
Which isn't a battle most people want (or can afford) to get into with a company with the resources of DJI.
I mostly agree, but I think it depends on the seriousness of the incident.

Someone being killed under these circumstances would likely bring contingency representation for the pilot out of the woodwork. DJI has deep pockets, they would be in very big liability trouble for deliberately designing a system that the pilot could not control to AVOID hitting the now deceased person.

DJI would (will) be up **** creek if this happens. So will the pilot, so their incentive to also go after DJI for damages -- and absolution from blame -- will be enormous.

So long as it's pissed off pilots and damaged drones because of this stupid design, nothing's going to happen to DJI.
 
So long as it's pissed off pilots and damaged drones because of this stupid design, nothing's going to happen to DJI.

Good point. I'm just surprised someone in DJI's legal department hasn't thrown a fit about this already.
 
Send them an email.
Brendan Schulman is the VP of Legal Affairs.
 
DJI has nothing legally to lose by allowing the pilot to continue to control the AC. In fact, they're protecting themselves by keeping the pilot responsible for any consequences of flying the AC.

This is true - and fairly obvious. So, why would they design and implement the current system?

My guess is that some idiot government employee threatened roadblocks re: licensing unless DJI implemented a system that would not let pilots operate their craft inside NFZ's.

If my speculation is true - perhaps DJI has written requirements from a government agency which *requires* their software to behave this way. If so - DJI may not be concerned about legal ramifications since they will also be able to point the finger to the government - at least in whichever country mandated the behaviour - however in all other countries - they would/will still be responsible for their control software.

I have no evidence that points to the above being true. But from a liability perspective, it makes no sense at all for DJI to take away control from the operator - under ANY circumstances - and DJI has to have legal departments that have told them as much - so there almost certainly has to be a reason they do this that they're not sharing publicly.

This doesn't make it right - and it definitely needs to change - but it could explain WHY it is the way it is, and why DJI doesn't seem to care about changing it.





Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
 
This is true - and fairly obvious. So, why would they design and implement the current system?

My guess is that some idiot government employee threatened roadblocks re: licensing unless DJI implemented a system that would not let pilots operate their craft inside NFZ's.
A leading contender for the reason behind this I'll certainly agree, given my experience with government rule-makers :D

Still, I can imagine the testimony on the stand by the pilot against DJI in the lawsuit: "Your honor, I've been flying drones as part of my film-making business for 10 years. I was terrified as the drone dropped straight on that disabled kid knocking him over the edge of Half-Dome where he fell to his death. I was in complete control until the DJI software mistook a phantom Presidential TFR that didn't even exist, took over control of the aircraft, and dove 200ft it into the boy! Had I simply got a warning, I could have easily flown and landed safely away from the area. Instead, thanks to DJI engineers, that poor kid won't see his 14th birthday."

BTW, don't read anything into that swipe at the engineers, or any of the other dramatics. Just simulating well-coached witness testimony ;)
 
To carry this line of thinking a little further...... the F.A.A. regulations for pilots of "regular" aircraft state in bold print "The pilot in command has the SOLE responsibility for the safety of the flight". This was emphasized during my pilot training. I used to get into debates with the air traffic controllers once in a while about who is in charge. They hated it when I cited this regulation!

My stance is that if drones are considered aircraft, then I assume all of the liability of the flight. If this is the case, then I should have complete control over the flight. I am no longer liable when the software takes away my control.

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds in the next year. It would be great to have their attorney at a symposium to talk about the subject. I'd love to have an intellectual and legal discussion with him as a pilot and J.D.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JWH
Doe anyone know if you can fly your Phantom with something like Litchi without the DJI Go 4 app so you can fly wherever without any interference with DJI taking control of your craft? I would think since the drone receives it's instructions from the controller/app, if you have an app that does not provide NFZ, TFR then this means you can fly feeling safe that the software is not going to bork your flight.
Anyone have a definitive answer on that?
 
You can corner case all you like. Won't help. DJI is quite within their rights to limit functionality when they feel safety is compromised. They are not obligated to be right 100% of the time. They're not Space Shuttles.

About the only thing I can believe DJI would be legally liable for (and this is a stretch ) is to refund the price (or part of it) in the event that you could successfully argue that any new limitations fundamentally changed the value of the device. Goodluckwiththat.

More likely, DJI is probably required by the FAA to functionality where limits are blocked by the Feds. I don't agree with a lot of the first post. First off, heliports, whether EMS utilized or privately used should always be avoided because their flights in and out of their LZ (landing zone) is only communicated to the ER at the hospital and typically to the base where they're housed. You also never know where they're coming from with respect to direction. And if your uSAS is in the air, you may start to hear a helicopter inbound to the pad and might not have enough time to get your craft back and out of the vicinity. I spent many years working as a Flight Paramedic on a helicopter and this has become more of a conversation around the cockpit than most realize. I'm also a Fixed wing pilot and have a good understanding of both sides of this discussion. My wife is currently a Flight Nurse on a helicopter system in the St. Louis area. She and her crew members have to be on a constant alert strictly due to drone traffic near heliports they access. It's become a daily conversation, specifically due to the numbers of drones out there. I believe it's best to caution on the side of the FAA and the manufacturer of the drones. These things are not multimillion dollar aircraft with sophisticated electronics to help us identify other flying units.

Just my opinions folks!



Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
 
More likely, DJI is probably required by the FAA to functionality where limits are blocked by the Feds. I don't agree with a lot of the first post. First off, heliports, whether EMS utilized or privately used should always be avoided because their flights in and out of their LZ (landing zone) is only communicated to the ER at the hospital and typically to the base where they're housed. You also never know where they're coming from with respect to direction. And if your uSAS is in the air, you may start to hear a helicopter inbound to the pad and might not have enough time to get your craft back and out of the vicinity. I spent many years working as a Flight Paramedic on a helicopter and this has become more of a conversation around the cockpit than most realize. I'm also a Fixed wing pilot and have a good understanding of both sides of this discussion. My wife is currently a Flight Nurse on a helicopter system in the St. Louis area. She and her crew members have to be on a constant alert strictly due to drone traffic near heliports they access. It's become a daily conversation, specifically due to the numbers of drones out there. I believe it's best to caution on the side of the FAA and the manufacturer of the drones. These things are not multimillion dollar aircraft with sophisticated electronics to help us identify other flying units.

Just my opinions folks!



Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

I am a general aviation pilot too. I agree with everything you said. The main concern I have is the policy of allowing the software can take away my control. It has never happened to me. I didn't even know that it would until reading this thread.

We all need to be diligent about keeping the drones out of the way of manned aircraft and other sensitive areas. The government never does anything in moderation when new regulations are written.
 
It will be interesting to see how this unfolds in the next year. It would be great to have their attorney at a symposium to talk about the subject. I'd love to have an intellectual and legal discussion with him as a pilot and J.D.
That would be a very one sided conversation. Brendan is a man of few words. Attorney-client privilege and NDA's would prevent him from divulging anything that you don't already know. :cool:
 
That would be a very one sided conversation. Brendan is a man of few words. Attorney-client privilege and NDA's would prevent him from divulging anything that you don't already know. :cool:

I've haven't discussed the result of an email chain with DJI either ;)

As an aside, you like how that smart return home "backup" feature works eh? (Bow) I like DJI, they listen...


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
 
Doe anyone know if you can fly your Phantom with something like Litchi without the DJI Go 4 app so you can fly wherever without any interference with DJI taking control of your craft? I would think since the drone receives it's instructions from the controller/app, if you have an app that does not provide NFZ, TFR then this means you can fly feeling safe that the software is not going to bork your flight.
Anyone have a definitive answer on that?

I'm going to try to state this in layman's terms for the readers who might not have a deep knowledge of software development.

Third party apps like Litchi, Autopilot, DroneDeploy and all the others can run without DJI Go - but they do not communicate with the drone directly. They are developed using an SDK (software development kit) provided by DJI which includes basically a "runtime" or a "proxy" of sorts. DJI provides this SDK so that third parties can write software that extends the capabilities of our drones.

The third party software sends instructions to the DJI SDK and the DJI software interprets those instructions, translates them into commands for the drone and then transmits them to the drone. At no time ever does the third party software ever communicate directly to the drone.

As far as your NFZ question is concerned - it's my understanding that they are built right into the firmware that permanently resides on the drone itself. There may be the possibility that this permanent list is augmented by the SDK or by DJI Go or the third-party app (or will be in the future) so that temporary NFZ's and TFR's can be uploaded as they are defined - but the bulk of permanent NFZ's exist in the drone itself and/or in the DJI SDK that the third party app communicates through - so, many of our drones automated behaviors can NOT be overridden/avoided by using 3rd party software.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
 
  • Like
Reactions: JWH
I've haven't discussed the result of an email chain with DJI either ;)

As an aside, you like how that smart return home "backup" feature works eh? (Bow) I like DJI, they listen...


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
I can only imagine...

On the aside, not impressed at all. It doesn't work as intended, and only further delays the return of the control signal. With the original RTH, the initial ascension immediately restored signal, and I could then sally forth. Now, I have to wait 30 seconds to a minute or longer without signal, hoping for signal to be restored. The change in aircraft orientation during retracing also degrades the original signal in that location at that elevation. When the signal is weakest, ascension is the best solution, not retracing! What's not to like? :eek:
 
I can only imagine...

On the aside, not impressed at all. It doesn't work as intended, and only further delays the return of the control signal. With the original RTH, the initial ascension immediately restored signal, and I could then sally forth. Now, I have to wait 30 seconds to a minute or longer without signal, hoping for signal to be restored. The change in aircraft orientation during retracing also degrades the original signal in that location at that elevation. When the signal is weakest, ascension is the best solution, not retracing! What's not to like? :eek:

Next time you lose signal under tree cover might change your mind. Also, when it simply passes behind a very tall building, I do not want to have to wait while it ascends out of my sight, out of my control, blindly, up up up maybe even 100s of feet to clear the tall narrow building, when simply backing up 15 feet would put it back in signal and right where I left it, a place I know is safe and in VLOS. I'd prefer as little autonomous flight as possible, especially in the most blind direction on this drone, up. Sensors of some kind in every direction except that one and that's where you want it to blindly climb?


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
 

Recent Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,094
Messages
1,467,602
Members
104,980
Latest member
ozmtl