No Fly Zone hack?

[SilentAV8R]

What we fly is categorized as an aircraft. We do not meet the requirements for aircraft to operate within the DC TFR area. End of story.

 

[ianwood]

If only the FAA would stop putting square pegs in round holes and instead start educating the public, people might understand this better and be comfortable with it.

 

[SilentAV8R]

That Genie is already out of the bottle. Congress defined models as aircraft as did the NTSB judge (narrowly applied to Pirker but can easily be expanded for all models). What we fly are a type of aircraft. Not sure what education of the public will do as long as there are people flying near airplanes/airports, in restricted areas, over people, and near buildings where folks feel their privacy can be invaded.

 

[QYV]

yea seriously, nobody on here should be helping a 1 post count newbie/troll/whatever actively circumvent federal law... that's precisely the type of behavior that's going to get this hobby and our crafts regulated out of existence or at least fun.

 

[ianwood]

That Genie is already out of the bottle. Congress defined models as aircraft as did the NTSB judge (narrowly applied to Pirker but can easily be expanded for all models). What we fly are a type of aircraft. Not sure what education of the public will do as long as there are people flying near airplanes/airports, in restricted areas, over people, and near buildings where folks feel their privacy can be invaded.

Percentage of Phantom owners who:

• Think they own an aircraft: 0.0001%
• Are aware the FAA deems a Phantom an aircraft: <1%
• Know what a TFR is and/or have a vague notion of what controlled airspace is: <1%
• Think about all the risks before flying: 50%
• Would knowingly endanger an aircraft: 0.0001%

(percentages are a wild guess)

The problem is not regulations or whatever the FAA thinks is an aircraft. It's education. Inform the people how to be safe and most of the time, they'll do it. It's really rather simple.

 

[QYV]

your problem ianwood is assuming a government agency would use logic of any sort.

 

[ianwood]

your problem ianwood is assuming a government agency would use logic of any sort.

Sadly, I suspect you're right in this case. But it gives me an idea... Does anyone know how to get in touch with Colin Guinn?

 

[SilentAV8R]

I agree that few know the items you listed. But then again, ignorance of the law is no defense. I think DJI could go a long ways by including some information with their products. Perhaps linking to the "Know Before You Fly" website as a start. Perhaps a link to the AMA as well. I also think they need to include a clear statement that modifying their equipment, and specifically the antennas, is a violation of FCC Pat 15 Rules.

So that would be a start.

That Genie is already out of the bottle. Congress defined models as aircraft as did the NTSB judge (narrowly applied to Pirker but can easily be expanded for all models). What we fly are a type of aircraft. Not sure what education of the public will do as long as there are people flying near airplanes/airports, in restricted areas, over people, and near buildings where folks feel their privacy can be invaded.

Percentage of Phantom owners who:

• Think they own an aircraft: 0.0001%
• Are aware the FAA deems a Phantom an aircraft: <1%
• Know what a TFR is and/or have a vague notion of what controlled airspace is: <1%
• Think about all the risks before flying: 50%
• Would knowingly endanger an aircraft: 0.0001%

(percentages are a wild guess)

The problem is not regulations or whatever the FAA thinks is an aircraft. It's education. Inform the people how to be safe and most of the time, they'll do it. It's really rather simple.

 

[ianwood]

You're right. Ignorance of the law is no defense. But if the FAA spends all of it's resources punishing rule breakers, it's not really doing a good job, is it? It needs to be stopped before it happens.

No Fly Zones are a good short term solution to deal with an uninformed user base. But the longer term, better solution is to inform the user base.

 

[jason]

your problem ianwood is assuming a government agency would use logic of any sort.

Sadly, I suspect you're right in this case. But it gives me an idea... Does anyone know how to get in touch with Colin Guinn?

Colin works for 3DR IRIS+ down in Texas.

 

[ianwood]

Colin works for 3DR IRIS+ down in Texas.

Yes. I saw that. Looking for someone who knows him.

 

[discv]

3D Robotics customer service will pass on the message (and confirm). But if Colin will reply----------??

 

[SilentAV8R]

Guys SilentAV8r does the same thing routinely on rcgroups.com
goes on about regulation and Fcc etc, scaring people off.
Don't fall for it. FCC has no enforcing body, Hams do much worse things than modifying 1w rf power equipment, they use hundreds of watts of power.
Antennas don't need to be certified FCC or Ce, a transmitter + antenna gets certified.
Best disregard this guy altogether, they do that on rcgroups.

Sorry you see it that way. "Going on about the regulation"? Really?? So you somehow see something wrong with knowing what is legal to do and not to do? What are legal modifications and what are not? Wow.

You make a legal product, that can be legally sold, and in some cases used in a perfectly legal manner. However, it cannot be used legally on anything made by DJI. You know this and prefer to ignore it. Fortunately for your customers the FCC largely ignores it as well. As to what a ham can do, that is another subject all together. Trying to imply that because some hams may violate FCC regs means it is ok for anyone to do the same makes no sense at all.

As far as the FCC having no enforcement body, this is another error on your part. They do in fact have one and they have even sent people to jail.

http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/

And once again, I have NEVER said it was illegal for you to make or sell your products. However, it is absolutely illegal for a Phantom owner to use your antennas. That is a crystal clear issue. Certainly there may be little risk of getting caught by the FCC, but I am betting that sooner or later the FAA may join forces with the FCC to stop illegal modifications which serve the main purpose of allowing high altitude and/or BLOS flying.

Before you keep spouting this nonsense and attempting to denigrate my posting on this issue I suggest maybe you chat with your attorney to see what the law really says. Again, you may be able to manufacture and sell the antennas, but your customers should take the time to determine if they can legally use them and if not, to determine for themselves if they want to assume the liability for doing so. I can tell you that I have been an expert witness for a couple of RC related cases and in both instances the attorneys were very interested in establishing the fact that the radio equipment in use was legal or not.

Here is the FCC rule:

§ 15.203 Antenna requirement.

An intentional radiator shall be designed to ensure that no antenna other than that furnished by the responsible party shall be used with the device. The use of a permanently attached antenna or of an antenna that uses a unique coupling to the intentional radiator shall be considered sufficient to comply with the provisions of this section. The manufacturer may design the unit so that a broken antenna can be replaced by the user, but the use of a standard antenna jack or electrical connector is prohibited. This requirement does not apply to carrier current devices or to devices operated under the provisions of §15.211, §15.213, §15.217, §15.219, or §15.221. Further, this requirement does not apply to intentional radiators that must be professionally installed, such as perimeter protection systems and some field disturbance sensors, or to other intentional radiators which, in accordance with §15.31(d), must be measured at the installation site. However, the installer shall be responsible for ensuring that the proper antenna is employed so that the limits in this part are not exceeded.

[54 FR 17714, Apr. 25, 1989, as amended at 55 FR 28762, July 13, 1990]

Here are some more resources:

http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engin ... t63rev.pdf

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_ ... 001087.doc

 

[djsydvicious]

I don't want to sound like some edgy teenager but 15 mile radius around no fly zones? Anyone in that area is going to get screwed, now having to drive out of the range just to use their drone.

I'm in that area and it hurts. I use to go outside almost daily when weather permits. Now, I'm losing interest as I have to drive 20-30 minutes up the road whenever I have the desire to fly.

I would even be satisfied if I could at least go up 100-200 feet or so where I am. I'm about 13 miles outside the city in Maryland suburbs.

 

[ranger052]

I wish that instead of enforcing a no flight zone they will just allow us to fly up to a few feets.

I live close to a small private plane airport and everrytime I want to fly the drone i have to drive a couple of miles away. Wtf!!!!! I cannot even do a simple motor test on my home because the P3 wont just work. I mean seriously wtf is that!!!!

 

[ranger052]

I cannot even do a indoor test of the new sensors for indoor flight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Fyod]

Wouldn't disconnecting the gps help?
In case of P3 probably even turning off gps in the FPV device.

 

[ranger052]

Wouldn't disconnecting the gps help?
In case of P3 probably even turning off gps in the FPV device.

It could but still is a problem because I am now to drones and with the gps off is more difficult to fly.

Question, how do you turn off the gps? Lol. New guy here jeje

 

[Hughie]

I may be misunderstanding what you mean, but IIRC if you disconnect the GPS on a P2, the motors wont start.

 

[Fyod]

Not sure, never tried, to be honest.