WARNING its the "DEATH OF DRONES" 50m height & 100m range limit if EASA pass these new RULES

The document talks about 2-3yrs to implement. But who knows.

They can bring this sort of thing in pretty quickly if they want to. Remember this has been in planning for a year or so now. The implementation process has all be planned already


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
They can bring this sort of thing in pretty quickly if they want to. Remember this has been in planning for a year or so now. The implementation process has all be planned already


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They can.

Hence another reason for the flying RC community to get involved as this obviously affects more than just quads.
 
Just out of curiosity , how could such a rule be enforced ?

They can force drone makers to put a forced firmware update in place meaning you couldn't physically move beyond the fixed limits without hacking firmware.

I'm sure people will find ways around this but for the majority it would put a quick end to their flights.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Just out of curiosity , how could such a rule be enforced ?

There are companies out there making drone watching equipment for sale with some advertising a 14 mile range, and more coming along. If cities or enforcement buy them, evidently a drone is traceable through some ID the drone uses for communication (Search DroneWatcher). With that, once you've registered your drone with DJI, that info can be made available to them. DJI admits to using a third party for that data and if enforcement needs it so be it. Don't know if they've supplied any so far, but I wouldn't be surprised if it they have or the system's been tested. Some on the Yuneec forums have expressed their concerns too so it may be some import law that the government has placed on them to be sold here (Yuneec seems more strict on their geo-fencing than DJI too??). I don't know if the USA made ones have that data stream as they seem very primitive in operation much like normal RC equipment, but they are expensive as heck with little or no geo-fencing or autonomous flight so who knows. If the FAA begins using satellite radar to peer into valleys where land radar cannot (Metroplex and/or NewGen) then who knows what that will be capable of. I doubt if we are that inconspicuous as we'd like to think we are.
 
PM May has said that she's implementing a change in the law (that we make our own laws) because we're leaving the EU so if the EU bring in this law it shouldn't affect us in the UK hopefully.
we will be out of the EU within the next 3 years i recon
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stevie_UK and Doink
We're probably screwed . And I can't imagine DJI will be too pleased , having just released the Mavic with it's 4.3 mile range !

The manufacturers should be well aware of the proposed changes and will be looking into all ways to comply with these types of requirements, hopefully coming up with suitable products that will still enable us to enjoy this hobby.

What is obviously more concerning is what should happen to existing hardware. Software limitations can be easily implemented but, alone, will mean less capable products.

Some compromise should be considered by the EASA
 
PM May has said that she's implementing a change in the law (that we make our own laws) because we're leaving the EU so if the EU bring in this law it shouldn't affect us in the UK hopefully.
we will be out of the EU within the next 3 years i recon

What the hellls the delay, sign that artcle 50 immediately!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stevie_UK and Doink
I'm nearly sure I heard that a law would be introduced to import current EU law into British law and then after the brexit the UK can either keep or reject any of these as it sees fit . Either way , the bottom line is The Man is happy enough to watch our every move , but doesn't much appreciate the idea of us being able to watch him !
 
"be designed as far as practicable to avoid single failures resulting in a loss of control, or be equipped with an automatic system ensuring a safe flight termination in case of failures, or be equipped with an impact energy limitation device"

Noting that specific.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
Crashing harmlessly into the ground is a pretty easy way of 'safe flight termination' for a 1 kg plastic object. Safer than an Cirrus monoplane coming down on a parachute, anyway.
 

The worrying part in that report and in information linked in that report is that there is a distinction being made between "Model Aircraft" and "Drone" or "Multirotor Aircraft" which ,to me,seems to be indicating that non multirotor aircraft or "Model Aircraft",will be left alone and the new regulations will be directed more towards multirotor aircraft.

From the report linked above:
EASA are sending out a standard response to comments submitted:

"Subject: RE: Flying of Model Aircraft
Thank you for expressing interest in the UAS Prototype Rule.
We had and are having a big debate on model inclusion in this regulation and how to
differentiate between a model and a normal drone operator flying for leisure."


From
FAI & Europe Air Sports
Update on EASA Prototype Rules forUnmanned Aircraft

"The Prototype Rules are written to provide a regulatory framework for the rapidly
developing area of ‘drone’ operation (at this time principally multirotor aircraft)
.
Unfortunately, ‘drones’ and model aircraft share the same legal definition as
‘unmanned aircraft’ (UA) which means that the proposed regulations also
capture model flying.

EASA has tried to minimise the impact of the Prototype Rules on model flying
(through Article 15) and proposes that it will be accommodated within the
regulatory framework under a simplified authorisation process within the
proposed ‘Specific Category’."


So with those distinctions being made this could all be still as bad for multirotor enthusiasts as initially indicated.

Hopefully CASA will have more sense and not dump the reasonable regulations it has worked so hard to formulate and introduce over the last couple of years in favour of adopting a paranoid and discriminatory set of rules such as are proposed in these "prototype" European regulations.
 
Better keep eyes open and firewall closed before next DJI update... As far i know life they will push crap like this without any information.
Roger sir still on firmware 1.6 and 1.8 on four aircrafts using 2.92 iOS dji go and android 2.8.1 really don't trust what going on behind close doors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pluto88888
I installed a firewall on my Android device and blocked these DJI hosts:

mydjiflight.dji.com
newrelic.com <- app tracking and support software (i.e. who is using what and when)
djistatic.com
flurry.com <- Mobile analytics company
conf.international.baidu.com
baidu.com
qbox.me (via qbox.wscdns.com)
upgrade.dj2006.net
pingma.qq.com
u.dji.com
acbe.aasky.net <-type this one in a browser for a nice scare.
tpns.qq.com
dds.dji.com
pilotv2.djivideos.com
active.dji.com
m.dji.com
djicdn.com
www.skypixel.com
djiexplore.com
flysafe-api.dji.com <- LOL registered to Perfect Privacy LLC

Always check flyforbird.json in new app release and not install if it changed.
If you want be safe then avoid connection of DJI go to the internet or using this app.
DJI go can update NFZ through connection to the internet.

And to be honest - by the above reason i am using Litchi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pluto88888

Recent Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,352
Members
104,933
Latest member
mactechnic