cahutch said:
Unfortunately it's only going to get more restrictive in the future.
The Flysafe "junk" is necessary to prevent idiots from getting their phantom sucked into a jet engine and possibly killing hundreds of people. I'm all for it.
This is where you and I obviously differ. I don't see the FlyGimp system as being either necessary or useful. I'd be willing to pay money to see it hacked out of new firmware as it's released. At present I'm debating whether or not the ground station functionality is worth having arbitrary and capricious limitations randomly placed on how I can use something I bought.
People should have the right to fly their craft without artificial limitations placed upon them, whether those limitations come from the manufacturer or the government. If it's such a problem (which it isn't), make laws around safe use and then punish those who ignore those laws.
Would you accept delivery of a car that was designed to automatically limit the speed you could drive on roads to the posted speed limit? Would you accept delivery of a car that automatically shut down to prevent you from driving into "restricted areas" using some arbitrary made-up algorithm? I know I wouldn't. And I feel the exact same way about the equipment I purchase.
I bought my P2V+ knowing about the restrictions, and only purchased it because there was no reasonably close competing product with all its features at the time. Had there been a competitor that didn't force this crap down my throat, my business would have gone to them. (And it will in the future as this market expands.) Those who choose to treat their customers as adults instead of children who must be supervised by some sky nanny are the companies who deserve business.
cahutch said:
As for the ground station limitations, I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the FAA will completely outlaw fully autonomous flights as soon as they can. At least by uncertified or unlicensed systems and operators.
You're assuming that I (and many others) actually care about the FAA says. That assumption about me would, in some ways, be incorrect. I prefer to believe that those who actually fly UAVs know a lot more about safe operation than some retired-in-position government workers. By not getting its act together enough already to address UAV issues, the FAA has proven itself incompetent in this area and incapable of addressing it appropriately. As far as I'm concerned, they've lost all credibility around stating what's "safe" and what supposedly isn't. I'll let my best judgment be my guide, as there are few scenarios where it wouldn't be a better guide in the first place.
cahutch said:
Flying BVR uncontrolled on a completely automated flight path is dangerous and irresponsible. The Phantom has no way to avoid obstacles like trees, power lines, communications towers or anything else that might be in the way. It's an accident waiting to happen.
You're making several assumptions here. This UAV is capable of flying higher than any of the obstacles you've listed. And there are ways to fly this BVR in a perfectly responsible manner. If one starts with a proper survey of the area, noting approximate heights of potential obstacles and plotting a course to avoid them, then it is possible to fly BVR in a fully automated mode safely.
cahutch said:
BVR using FPV under human control is fine by me but sending it off with no way to know what it's doing or if it will ever come back is worth some debate. It could hit a cell tower and cause thousands of dollars in damage, it could have a malfunction and land suddenly on someone's house or car. Are you insured for that?
Well, if one isn't flying the mission as part of a business, then the answer for many could be "yes". Some homeowners insurance policies will cover this. An umbrella policy should definitely cover this. I don't know if any business insurance will, at this point. The last time I checked with an agent they were unsure that it would be a covered activity because of the way that the FAA is mistreating small business owners, lying about how flying UAVs for business purposes is not allowed. This, of course, is just one of the ways that the FAA is engaged in unfairly picking the "winners" and "losers" in the UAV business battle. Larger operations (such as film studios, who violate this so-called "rule" all the time) don't need to worry about this so much, because they can afford the loss if something crashes.
cahutch said:
As it is now, DJI is complying with FAA guidelines that limit operation to within visual range.
Which is rather dumb of them, considering that there is no law requiring that their software or aircraft be equipped with any limitations whatsoever. Anyway, it's only a guideline... and it's not the FAA has much in the way of enforcement powers around it. They can't even determine if it's happening in the first place, after all. Basically all we really have with the FAA is a whiny little b*tch of an agency that's antiquated, blind, and stupid. (Yeah, I don't have much respect for them and the way they're intentionally trying to destroy small business opportunities.)
cahutch said:
I would expect the same limitations to be added to the full ground station software in the future.
Again, I'll mention that whole DJI competitor thing. I'd imagine that many people would switch over to a company that didn't include arbitrary and capricious limitations on their wares. And even if such stupidity becomes law here in the US, there will always be an option of purchasing some non-gimped version of the software or hardware from abroad. And there could also be a black market of sorts opening up for people to get those limitations removed from their equipment... the hacking community is wonderful about doing these types of things at times. I'd actually welcome that sort of activity.
cahutch said:
The more of them there are in the air, the greater the need for some regulation.
I might agree with that, depending upon the type of regulations you'd advocate for. I'm not a fan of regulating anything before the necessity of it is clearly demonstrated. And even then, I'm a fan of minimal regulation. Government only tends to muck things up when it gets involved.
cahutch said:
It's only a matter of time before some poor slob on the ground get's his head caved in by a crashing UAV and we're all in for a shi*-storm the day that happens.
And there are already laws to cover appropriate compensation for this on the books for civil action, around liability for property damage and injury. There's no need for a government agency to come in and place restrictions just because someone wants to play Henny Penny and worry about the stuff that might happen. It's not government's job to protect us from the Boogey Man, after all.