You are in a no-fly zone... today, yesterday you weren't.
- Thread starter Shazbot4
- Start date
Very disturbing! The FAA is a joke. A mess continue to grow. Yea Phantom 1 - no B.S. I think I will buy a few more and x8 them.
Good luck flying, they are setting them up for mandatory upgrade or they don't fly. We are screwed.
Not mine, I haven't upgraded in ten months. It says update required on the top of the app but there's no way they can force me to update. I don't see how they could force you guys either. Even if they changed something in newer apps that adds a timer and disables use if you don't update there's gotta be a work sounds like uninstalling the app and reinstalling it or only running it on a device with no data connection so it never knows there's an update available. Theres always a way if there's a desire.
Well if you never run the app with Internet, it won't know there's an update to force you to get!
So, how do you control the camera settings and garner all the other information? A3K useless bird. Rather build a hex and add a SLR camera. Maybe Flytrax will work alone and eliminate the loss of video feed and map location. Ummmm!
This post makes no sense in context of the quoted post. You talking about controlling camera on a custom built drone? Or did you misunderstand what he said and think he meant don't use the app? He said don't use the app with a data connection enabled. For example turn off your Wi-Fi and mobile data connections before opening the app,
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2015
- Messages
- 1,044
- Reaction score
- 390
- Age
- 52
I don't update anything at all over the last 2 months,That's why I have a dedicated tablet also.No connection to the internet also.
But the worst thing is that DJI had never given any information about this.They live on their high throne and give us useless apps and now this kind of ********.
Any kid can buy a drone in any stupid warehouse and can fly without any knowledge of what they are doing and what rules there are.
Feel sorry for you Shazzbot.
But the worst thing is that DJI had never given any information about this.They live on their high throne and give us useless apps and now this kind of ********.
Any kid can buy a drone in any stupid warehouse and can fly without any knowledge of what they are doing and what rules there are.
Feel sorry for you Shazzbot.
I certainly understand the frustration everyone has against DJI implementing FAA no-fly zones because I'm 2 miles from a towered airport surrounded by class D (delta) airspace. However, DJI isn't really the problem.
When we discuss flying multirotors recreationally, CAN/CAN'T has a few facets we should all be aware of as we discuss the issue.
1. Law & Policy
2. Technical Capability
3. Legal Enforcement
As an example, let's use a flight at my house six months ago:
1. Law & Policy: If I listened to the FAA - and I generally do - I could only operate greater than 5mi from a towered airport. The house was (and is) less than 5mi from the local airport, so legally I couldn't fly.
2. Technical Capability: Both the Phantom and Inspire 1 were technically capable of flying within 5mi of the airport. They were not yet firmware-limited. I technically could fly.
3. Legal Enforcement: Should I have disregarded the intent of the law and policy, there was still very low likelihood of anyone detecting my flight, attributing the multirotor flight to me, and follow-through by a legal enforcement agency. I probably wouldn't have been caught, so I guess you could say I could fly.
We're moving through a disruptive technological period right now. This technological disruption causes old policies and laws, and the enforcement paired with them to play a game of catch-up. The end goal is an equilibrium between the three categories above.
DJIs move to enforce geofencing of existing FAA policy and law isn't surprising. I'm relatively certain that all ready-to-fly sUAS manufacturers will voluntarily implement this geofencing requirement. If not, laws will require them to. Will you be able to get around it if you really want to operate within the no-fly zones? Probably. You could hack the software, or you could custom-build a system with an older flight controller. However, the vast majority of users with only enough interest to buy-and-fly would be limited from flying in restricted areas by a technical solution.
As a FAA-certified pilot, I also have to say there's a concerning lack of education about the national airspace system in this thread. Whether you agree with it or not, there's an incredibly long-standing body of regulations surrounding how we use the air above us. This has been safely regulated and coordinated for air travel for nearly 90 years. Flying a sUAS within 2 miles of San Diego airports, without radio communication to the tower, and without a transponder on board the aircraft is definitely incongruent with the use of this airspace. Take your first couple flight lessons in a manned aircraft and you'll begin to see why.
We all have to share the air. sUAS for recreational and commercial use are here to stay, but the Laws & Policy, Technical Capabilities, and Legal Enforcement of our flights will be rapidly and significantly changing over the next few months and years. I'd really encourage those of you frustrated by the implementation of the no-fly zones in the DJI firmware to explore two things:
1. the current regulations surrounding the use of the national airspace
How: read up on the pilots handbook or other free FAA training documents regarding airspace and flight operations. I'm confident this time will not be wasted because I'm certain that the upcoming rules for operation of sUAS with phantom and inspire-like capabilities will require some sort of certificate. In order to obtain the certificate, you'll have to know this stuff.
ref: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_pol...on/pilot_handbook/media/PHAK - Chapter 14.pdf
2. speaking up to the FAA about what you believe you should have the right to do
How: check the news, and the Federal Register when rules are proposed for sUAS - then COMMENT. Here's the most recent regulation they're requesting input for - registration.
ref: Federal Register | Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Finally, I LOVE these things. For recreation and for commercial use. I'm confident UAS are changing the way this country works, and they're here to stay. I believe everyone should be able to fly, if they're willing to learn. This is already true for driving, for flying, or anything that poses risk to other people. It shouldn't be a huge investment, but it should be continuous. The bigger and more capable the machine, the more training required to fly it. Again, just like road vehicles and planes.
I encourage all of you to spend a little time learning this side of our hobby/profession so we can push the technology and its application for fun and business forward aggressively. Have fun, and fly safe!
When we discuss flying multirotors recreationally, CAN/CAN'T has a few facets we should all be aware of as we discuss the issue.
1. Law & Policy
2. Technical Capability
3. Legal Enforcement
As an example, let's use a flight at my house six months ago:
1. Law & Policy: If I listened to the FAA - and I generally do - I could only operate greater than 5mi from a towered airport. The house was (and is) less than 5mi from the local airport, so legally I couldn't fly.
2. Technical Capability: Both the Phantom and Inspire 1 were technically capable of flying within 5mi of the airport. They were not yet firmware-limited. I technically could fly.
3. Legal Enforcement: Should I have disregarded the intent of the law and policy, there was still very low likelihood of anyone detecting my flight, attributing the multirotor flight to me, and follow-through by a legal enforcement agency. I probably wouldn't have been caught, so I guess you could say I could fly.
We're moving through a disruptive technological period right now. This technological disruption causes old policies and laws, and the enforcement paired with them to play a game of catch-up. The end goal is an equilibrium between the three categories above.
DJIs move to enforce geofencing of existing FAA policy and law isn't surprising. I'm relatively certain that all ready-to-fly sUAS manufacturers will voluntarily implement this geofencing requirement. If not, laws will require them to. Will you be able to get around it if you really want to operate within the no-fly zones? Probably. You could hack the software, or you could custom-build a system with an older flight controller. However, the vast majority of users with only enough interest to buy-and-fly would be limited from flying in restricted areas by a technical solution.
As a FAA-certified pilot, I also have to say there's a concerning lack of education about the national airspace system in this thread. Whether you agree with it or not, there's an incredibly long-standing body of regulations surrounding how we use the air above us. This has been safely regulated and coordinated for air travel for nearly 90 years. Flying a sUAS within 2 miles of San Diego airports, without radio communication to the tower, and without a transponder on board the aircraft is definitely incongruent with the use of this airspace. Take your first couple flight lessons in a manned aircraft and you'll begin to see why.
We all have to share the air. sUAS for recreational and commercial use are here to stay, but the Laws & Policy, Technical Capabilities, and Legal Enforcement of our flights will be rapidly and significantly changing over the next few months and years. I'd really encourage those of you frustrated by the implementation of the no-fly zones in the DJI firmware to explore two things:
1. the current regulations surrounding the use of the national airspace
How: read up on the pilots handbook or other free FAA training documents regarding airspace and flight operations. I'm confident this time will not be wasted because I'm certain that the upcoming rules for operation of sUAS with phantom and inspire-like capabilities will require some sort of certificate. In order to obtain the certificate, you'll have to know this stuff.
ref: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_pol...on/pilot_handbook/media/PHAK - Chapter 14.pdf
2. speaking up to the FAA about what you believe you should have the right to do
How: check the news, and the Federal Register when rules are proposed for sUAS - then COMMENT. Here's the most recent regulation they're requesting input for - registration.
ref: Federal Register | Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Finally, I LOVE these things. For recreation and for commercial use. I'm confident UAS are changing the way this country works, and they're here to stay. I believe everyone should be able to fly, if they're willing to learn. This is already true for driving, for flying, or anything that poses risk to other people. It shouldn't be a huge investment, but it should be continuous. The bigger and more capable the machine, the more training required to fly it. Again, just like road vehicles and planes.
I encourage all of you to spend a little time learning this side of our hobby/profession so we can push the technology and its application for fun and business forward aggressively. Have fun, and fly safe!
I'm not advocating unsafe flight by any means, nor do I think uavs should be left unregulated but technically there are zero laws regarding flying uavs currently. The faa is treating uavs as real aircraft and applying those regulations to uavs as a temporary solution but they are completely unenforceable from a legal standpoint mind you because a uav is simply not an aircraft by definition.
We are tired of people saying "DRONES ARE ILLEGAL!" Here is real talk on what the law really is or isn't - Aeriographer.Com
Now I have no interest in debating this fact with you, cause it is a fact. You may have noticed the faa has stopped sending letters to people posting YouTube videos who don't have a pilots license and are making money of the footage. Why did they do this you might ask? Cause they know they have no legal grounds to do so, no uav laws currently exist.
Now lets also consider that the faa very often grants permission to fly inside these dji software blocked nfzs, and permission is really easy to get by the way.
However dji has these zones permanently blocked, even temporary nfzs that the faa issues like over stadiums during events are permanently blocked, no way to fly there even when you have permission or no nfz order currently exists in that location. Dji is continually adding more and more of these stupid nfz and blocking flight in areas where it's perfectly legal to fly in multiple countries.
This is not a good thing and they have zero authority to even be blocking flight in the first place. It's not their business nor responsibility to enforce any laws in any country. I understand their good intentions in doing these nfz but as usual they have made a massive mess of it and are preventing flight in many areas where it's perfectly legal to fly, this is completely unacceptable. I don't see how any sane person can defend dji for doing this.
I'm also starting to notice that the only idiots eagerly supporting the current unenforceable recommendations like needing a pilots license for flying uavs commercially are people who already have one and are trying to keep others from opening a competing business. You can legally fly a uav in the same spot taking the same pictures without having a pilots license if you don't plan to sell the footage mind you, so anyone who doesn't currently have a pilots license wants to fly a uav commercially would have to waste weeks of their life and spend thousands of dollars racking up 20-40 hours of flight time in a plane to get it. There's zero logical reasoning for this and no sane person could think it's a good idea or acceptable in any way either.
We are tired of people saying "DRONES ARE ILLEGAL!" Here is real talk on what the law really is or isn't - Aeriographer.Com
Now I have no interest in debating this fact with you, cause it is a fact. You may have noticed the faa has stopped sending letters to people posting YouTube videos who don't have a pilots license and are making money of the footage. Why did they do this you might ask? Cause they know they have no legal grounds to do so, no uav laws currently exist.
Now lets also consider that the faa very often grants permission to fly inside these dji software blocked nfzs, and permission is really easy to get by the way.
However dji has these zones permanently blocked, even temporary nfzs that the faa issues like over stadiums during events are permanently blocked, no way to fly there even when you have permission or no nfz order currently exists in that location. Dji is continually adding more and more of these stupid nfz and blocking flight in areas where it's perfectly legal to fly in multiple countries.
This is not a good thing and they have zero authority to even be blocking flight in the first place. It's not their business nor responsibility to enforce any laws in any country. I understand their good intentions in doing these nfz but as usual they have made a massive mess of it and are preventing flight in many areas where it's perfectly legal to fly, this is completely unacceptable. I don't see how any sane person can defend dji for doing this.
I'm also starting to notice that the only idiots eagerly supporting the current unenforceable recommendations like needing a pilots license for flying uavs commercially are people who already have one and are trying to keep others from opening a competing business. You can legally fly a uav in the same spot taking the same pictures without having a pilots license if you don't plan to sell the footage mind you, so anyone who doesn't currently have a pilots license wants to fly a uav commercially would have to waste weeks of their life and spend thousands of dollars racking up 20-40 hours of flight time in a plane to get it. There's zero logical reasoning for this and no sane person could think it's a good idea or acceptable in any way either.
You're spot on sultan. It's a temporary fix on all fronts - policy statements (unenforceable) while we wait for law, imperfect deployments of technical solutions by DJI, and a lot of threats from enforcement agencies and fear mongering by media.
You're right about pilots protecting their business by lobbying for a pilots license. I agree that a pilots license isn't at all transferable in the category of piloting skills - though airspace utilization and basic aerodynamics is directly transferable. It should be the safest and best operators who are successful, not those who can plunk down the most cash or fill out the most onerous paperwork.
My point wasn't to say the current state of things is correct. Rather, it's in a state of rapid flux. Some of what the FAA intends to implement is safety-related - such as operating within the terminal area of an airport environment without close coordination.
What is certain is that SUAS will become regulated at some level. It won't be the Wild West that it's been the last few years.
I'm hopeful that the flying community can provide constructive suggestions on how to better implement the solutions required for safe use of the skies by all parties.
You're right about pilots protecting their business by lobbying for a pilots license. I agree that a pilots license isn't at all transferable in the category of piloting skills - though airspace utilization and basic aerodynamics is directly transferable. It should be the safest and best operators who are successful, not those who can plunk down the most cash or fill out the most onerous paperwork.
My point wasn't to say the current state of things is correct. Rather, it's in a state of rapid flux. Some of what the FAA intends to implement is safety-related - such as operating within the terminal area of an airport environment without close coordination.
What is certain is that SUAS will become regulated at some level. It won't be the Wild West that it's been the last few years.
I'm hopeful that the flying community can provide constructive suggestions on how to better implement the solutions required for safe use of the skies by all parties.
Fair enough. You can't expect the new laws to only affect uavs however, if collisions between small planes and uavs are an issue under 400 feet then simply banning uavs from flying anywhere but designated areas is not a reasonable option, small planes gotta fly higher, take their chances, or find some other solution. There are too many legitimate reasons for uavs to be flying over cities and they are not any less safe than a small plane doing the same thing. More safe in fact. I'd much rather be in the vicinity of a uav crash than a small plane crash.
You have some great points there, and I would tend to agree. However, I don't think the goal is an either/or solution. From the outset, they've stated their goal is to integrate UAS into the national airspace. Not segment the national airspace. Since they don't have the regulation, technology or enforcement in place to do that, they've generally attempted to create no-fly-zones around particularly sensitive portions of the airspace.
I'm certain that UAS will be integrated. I'm also relatively certain that operating in these more sensitive areas will require more from the user... namely a transponder for reporting the aircraft telemetry data to the FAA's ADSB system (and on to other manned aircraft), and two-way communication with the tower or airspace control entity - probably a radio.
In fact, this approach is already executed by organizations that want to operate in sensitive places. They have received a 333 to operate their craft and waive the requirement for a transponder. They have a COA that allows flight within the sensitive airspace - and this usually requires direct communication with the tower over radio and an N-number for the aircraft. The COA also states the UAS operator is a pilot - not for his/her flying skills, but for their knowledge of the processes and communication required in sensitive airspace. It works, it just requires more effort and knowledge.
Keep in mind, this current solution is cumbersome, and executed on a case-by-case basis for those who work hard enough to make it happen. It's also not required when operating outside the 5 mile rings around airports. Out there anyone can fly... though according to the FAA they *should* stay below 400ft.
Things are coming along - but as I've said earlier I can certainly understand the frustration with DJI. For customers that live within 5 miles of an airport, who have bought their products and only recently found out through a firmware update that they shouldn't be flying in that area... that's tough, and an ugly, cumbersome route towards a more elegant final solution. It will get better!
I'm certain that UAS will be integrated. I'm also relatively certain that operating in these more sensitive areas will require more from the user... namely a transponder for reporting the aircraft telemetry data to the FAA's ADSB system (and on to other manned aircraft), and two-way communication with the tower or airspace control entity - probably a radio.
In fact, this approach is already executed by organizations that want to operate in sensitive places. They have received a 333 to operate their craft and waive the requirement for a transponder. They have a COA that allows flight within the sensitive airspace - and this usually requires direct communication with the tower over radio and an N-number for the aircraft. The COA also states the UAS operator is a pilot - not for his/her flying skills, but for their knowledge of the processes and communication required in sensitive airspace. It works, it just requires more effort and knowledge.
Keep in mind, this current solution is cumbersome, and executed on a case-by-case basis for those who work hard enough to make it happen. It's also not required when operating outside the 5 mile rings around airports. Out there anyone can fly... though according to the FAA they *should* stay below 400ft.
Things are coming along - but as I've said earlier I can certainly understand the frustration with DJI. For customers that live within 5 miles of an airport, who have bought their products and only recently found out through a firmware update that they shouldn't be flying in that area... that's tough, and an ugly, cumbersome route towards a more elegant final solution. It will get better!
I agree, however the point being these temporary solutions are not legally enforceable and more to the point do not give dji the right to arbitrarily limit flight when they clearly have no legal right to do so.
No Chinese drone company has the legal right or obligation to limit drone flight in other countries, regardless of that I was just pointing out that they are doing so based on faa recommendations which aren't even legally enforceable in the first place. Even if they were legally enforceable there still is no reason for a Chinese company to care one way or the other.
If it helps your tiny mind comprehend try to think of it as if Toyota limited the top speed of vehicles sold in the usa to 55mph because they mistakenly believe that's the highest legal speed limit in the usa.
Or more accurately to this situation they issued a recall and imposed this change after millions of people have already purchased their product, because certainly it's not a stretch of the imagination to understand most people wouldn't buy a product if it had advertised such ridiculous limits in the first place.
Last edited:
My apologies, it seemed like you were defending them for continually limiting flight abilities for no good reason.
Where can I find the latest DJI no fly zone map? the one on there site is for Phantoms.. I noticed that here in Pittsburgh there are two over the stadiums.. but they don't show up on there map.. is there a Inspire1 map anywhere?
This is the current one for the Inspire and Phantom 3 series:
No Fly Zones | DJI
DJI is transitioning to a new no-fly zone system that will be powered by Airmap.
Thanks... do you know how accurate that map is? I was in pgh 30 days ago and the NFZ was much larger based on a .6 mile radius around the stadiums...
Similar threads
