DJI passing customer log to FAA
- Thread starter Hercules_One
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2013
- Messages
- 10,851
- Reaction score
- 5,717
And would this not be a direct breach by DJI of data protection legislation in the United States?
I take these stories with a pinch of salt in any case.
And if the operator was indeed flying in class B airspace then I have no sympathy.
Sorry if that sounds harsh but people have to understand that they simply cannot fly wherever they like.
I was reading about this with interest on facebook this morning, pretty much all unsubstantiated rumours fuelled by some very paranoid people, just like most scare stories on FB 
On one thread the vice president of legal affairs at DJI actually came on and stated that they dont share any info to anyone without a warrant, as per their data protection legislation but his statement was ignored by many all because some guy's friend of a friend said it was true.
Plus the original complainer was flying in restricted airspace and also admitted making commercial gain while unlicensed.
On one thread the vice president of legal affairs at DJI actually came on and stated that they dont share any info to anyone without a warrant, as per their data protection legislation but his statement was ignored by many all because some guy's friend of a friend said it was true.Plus the original complainer was flying in restricted airspace and also admitted making commercial gain while unlicensed.
I also have no sympathy - but this case is hardly about that. On the other hand I agree with you - take this for what it is - a story. I do not believe it.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2015
- Messages
- 257
- Reaction score
- 64
- Age
- 46
This was a FAA "guy" whom knows the game. I do commend them at that. Its a old trick. If they know the records are stored someplace, If I was a FAA guy,I would "plant the seed" that I have access to those records in hopes that the conversation would spread like wild fire. In this case it certainly did. Those records could be obtained, but here is the dilemma. If you have a warrant or subpoena it does no good in China, if that in fact is where the cloud servers are located. I would be very surprised that the FAA could have the investigative drive/means as the other Alphabet agencies when it comes to crossing over the pond to gather evidence, digital or in paper format.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2015
- Messages
- 257
- Reaction score
- 64
- Age
- 46
This has nothing to do with the flight logs. This company ..27 years in the making surely did not just use an off the shelf quad. They have very specific RC Helios that have the ability to complete an auto-rotations in case the engine fails. Not even close to off the shelf models. This suit was only due to them in class B airspace and not "notifying" the airport of it. However since they, Skypan, had filed a suit against the FAA months before this fine, they were certainly targeted due to the abeyance that the Federal Judge ordered on the FAA.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2015
- Messages
- 361
- Reaction score
- 26
He wrote that he asked his friend how the FAA could know he had been flying there and the friend answered because the FAA have access to the flight records.
It sounds to me that the reason FAA knew where he had been flying was because his friend told FAA where he had been flying, and of course his friend didn't want to confess to have revealed this info to FAA so he said "because FAA has access to flight records".
It sounds to me that the reason FAA knew where he had been flying was because his friend told FAA where he had been flying, and of course his friend didn't want to confess to have revealed this info to FAA so he said "because FAA has access to flight records".
His videos are on YouTube. FAA just needs to do a search. This person is definitely flying within 5 miles of Logan international airport not to mention over highways. People like this are ruining it for everyone.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2015
- Messages
- 361
- Reaction score
- 26
[/QUOTE] His videos are on YouTube. FAA just needs to do a search. This person is definitely flying within 5 miles of Logan international airport not to mention over highways. People like this are ruining it for everyone.[/QUOTE]
Well if the Boston University flight that he was surprised how FAA knew about should be available on a video online then i think its very strange that he is surprised how FAA knows about that particular flight.
Are you sure that particular flight is available online?
Well if the Boston University flight that he was surprised how FAA knew about should be available on a video online then i think its very strange that he is surprised how FAA knows about that particular flight.
Are you sure that particular flight is available online?
Didn't see that flight on YouTube, but his Facebook page shows images of the drone in areas near BU as well as near the airport. Not sure how the FAA knows about a specific flight. No sympathy for those who don't respect public safety.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2015
- Messages
- 361
- Reaction score
- 26
Yes i agree that its not an responsible act to fly in that area, i see not only potential danger to aircrafts in the air but also pedestrians etc. on the ground, it looks like a very heavily populated area.
But my initial thought was if thats true that FAA has access to flight records that has not been posted online?
But my initial thought was if thats true that FAA has access to flight records that has not been posted online?
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2013
- Messages
- 10,851
- Reaction score
- 5,717
Beyond stupidity! Guantanamo Bay is too nice a place for this guy. I hope the FAA throw the book at him.
Especially in Boston, where Class B airspace covers the entire cities of Boston and Cambridge without exception, there is basic confusion between commercial rules (under the Blanket Certificate of Operation [COA] that is issued to new Section 333 exemption holders) and amateur rules.
For 333 Exemption holders without a very specific COA, flying in Class B airspace is effectively prohibited, since it's impossible to maintain two-way radio communications with air traffic control and an altitude-reporting transponder is impractical on an Inspire. In Boston, that means no flying for hire within 8 nautical miles of Logan Airport, which encompasses all of the sites that were shown in the video, including Boston University (which he admits to flying over).
On the other hand, amateurs can fly up to 400 feet outside of a 5 STATUTE mile radius of an airport like Logan, under the model aircraft exception.
All of that having been said, the prohibition of very low altitude (below 200 feet) commercial UAS flights in the Boston Class B airspace greater than 5 statute miles but less than 8 nautical miles from the airport makes no sense. There is no conflict with ANY air traffic in this zone, other than perhaps from Medivac helicopters landing and taking off from hospitals in the area, which is a manageable hazard just about anywhere.
With luck, FAA will come to its senses and grant appropriately authorized commercial operators AT LEAST the same operating parameters as for amateurs, and will provide a better way for responsible commercial operators to operate above cities like Boston in areas where air traffic is non-existent.
For 333 Exemption holders without a very specific COA, flying in Class B airspace is effectively prohibited, since it's impossible to maintain two-way radio communications with air traffic control and an altitude-reporting transponder is impractical on an Inspire. In Boston, that means no flying for hire within 8 nautical miles of Logan Airport, which encompasses all of the sites that were shown in the video, including Boston University (which he admits to flying over).
On the other hand, amateurs can fly up to 400 feet outside of a 5 STATUTE mile radius of an airport like Logan, under the model aircraft exception.
All of that having been said, the prohibition of very low altitude (below 200 feet) commercial UAS flights in the Boston Class B airspace greater than 5 statute miles but less than 8 nautical miles from the airport makes no sense. There is no conflict with ANY air traffic in this zone, other than perhaps from Medivac helicopters landing and taking off from hospitals in the area, which is a manageable hazard just about anywhere.
With luck, FAA will come to its senses and grant appropriately authorized commercial operators AT LEAST the same operating parameters as for amateurs, and will provide a better way for responsible commercial operators to operate above cities like Boston in areas where air traffic is non-existent.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2013
- Messages
- 10,851
- Reaction score
- 5,717
