Confusing dji article

[happydays]

Oh this is just hilarious. I haven't logged on in here for a while but I'm glad that I did.

Oh the joy of listening to a redneck rant with absolutely no evidence...

It's all speculation folks, I'll just sit here quietly on my grassy knoll and watch all the anti-Chinese conspiracy theories unfold.

 

[Crack The Sky]

I don't think anyone is questioning the semantics of the login procedure or ramifications of not completing the procedure. The big question is - what is DJI's ultimate reason for insisting on the procedure in the first place? Because according to their own press release, it's to ensure you will use the correct flight functions as determined by your geographical location and user profile.

They're not going to spend time and money on taking the equivalent of a global class attendance just for the fun of it. There is a reason, and everyone wants to know what it is before they put their hand up and say 'here sir'.

This might well be a storm in a tea cup; but based on their choice of words, I think pilots have the right to be concerned until it all becomes clear.

Even if everything carries on as normal, I'm now wary about their end game. Release a couple more firmwares here and there and then one day... bam... you could be stuck following all the rules, with no ability to roll back.

bueller...bueller...bueller?

"stuck with following all the rules"? Well, that would suck for rule breakers!

 

[smiller]

Again, there's really just one fundamental question here... since DJI products already observe hard flight restrictions (NFZs, Authorization Zones, etc.) based on geograhpical location... what is changing? The answer to that single question would clear up a lot.

 

[Crack The Sky]

Again, there's really just one fundamental question here... since DJI products already observe hard flight restrictions (NFZs, Authorization Zones, etc.) based on geograhpical location... what is changing? The answer to that single question would clear up a lot.

Stay tuned!

 

[Mier]

Again, there's really just one fundamental question here... since DJI products already observe hard flight restrictions (NFZs, Authorization Zones, etc.) based on geograhpical location... what is changing? The answer to that single question would clear up a lot.

I am by no means happy about them changing things. What I've read here and on reddit doesn't make me anymore comfortable with DJI jacking with the firmware of a currently functioning as designed drone.

What I have gleaned is as follows.

1. DJI released a white paper that all proponents point to as what will be in the next firmware release. It states they view a software based transponder would be the ideal solution to monitoring drones. In the paper their solution is an additional packet of information in the currently radio transmission which contains the serial number with current telemetry (current coordinates, altitude, direction of travel, speed - I'm guessing at what will be contained in the packet) DJI wants to do this so that they don't have to track anything. A complaint is lodged and someone comes out with a receiver which pulls the info for authorities.
2. DJI indicates that there will be no additional restrictions. This is merely a way for them to upload the radio settings designated for that country as well as any information for flight restrictions.

Now if you believe all this then please proceed as directed. If you don't then remain skeptical till proven otherwise. I remain in the skeptic field because this could be the first step into essentially grounding the entire DJI fleet regardless of your desires. They are asserting control of their drones and dictating how they will be used so technically the device doesn't belong to you. This is also something that could be related the recent court cases that saw major manufacturers trying to stop shops from being able to repair their property. The problem comes down to do you actually own the device if the software required to run it has locked you out. So essentially there's a helluva fight over these questions of ownership.

DIY Tractor Repair Runs Afoul Of Copyright Law

 

[sar104]

I am by no means happy about them changing things. What I've read here and on reddit doesn't make me anymore comfortable with DJI jacking with the firmware of a currently functioning as designed drone.

What I have gleaned is as follows.

1. DJI released a white paper that all proponents point to as what will be in the next firmware release. It states they view a software based transponder would be the ideal solution to monitoring drones. In the paper their solution is an additional packet of information in the currently radio transmission which contains the serial number with current telemetry (current coordinates, altitude, direction of travel, speed - I'm guessing at what will be contained in the packet) DJI wants to do this so that they don't have to track anything. A complaint is lodged and someone comes out with a receiver which pulls the info for authorities.
2. DJI indicates that there will be no additional restrictions. This is merely a way for them to upload the radio settings designated for that country as well as any information for flight restrictions.

Now if you believe all this then please proceed as directed. If you don't then remain skeptical till proven otherwise. I remain in the skeptic field because this could be the first step into essentially grounding the entire DJI fleet regardless of your desires. They are asserting control of their drones and dictating how they will be used so technically the device doesn't belong to you. This is also something that could be related the recent court cases that saw major manufacturers trying to stop shops from being able to repair their property. The problem comes down to do you actually own the device if the software required to run it has locked you out. So essentially there's a helluva fight over these questions of ownership.

DIY Tractor Repair Runs Afoul Of Copyright Law

The software-based transponder is a really good idea in my opinion. Effectively equivalent to ADS-B. No downside at all unless you are flying illegally, so no doubt it will be really unpopular around here.

Then you wrote this:

"I remain in the skeptic field because this could be the first step into essentially grounding the entire DJI fleet regardless of your desires. They are asserting control of their drones and dictating how they will be used so technically the device doesn't belong to you."​

Why on earth would DJI want to ground their aircraft? That sounds like a very shaky business model. And how is adding a transponder capability equivalent to "asserting control of their(?) drones"?

 

[smiller]

No downside at all unless you are flying illegally

You see this statement a lot but it's rather naive. Even DJI's own white paper (linked above) points out many perfectly legal situations where broadcast of ID would be undesirable.

 

[N017RW]

It's in DJI's best-interest that their products be used responsibly.
At a minimum it has been demonstrated here, and in some cases boastfully, that not everyone can be trusted to do so.
Limiting use, and possibly reducing repeat sales, may be a calculated decision rather than face litigation and other PR losses.
Given their resources I'd bet they are confident they know what they are doing but time will tell.
So far history is on their side with regards to continued growth through innovation despite their other shortcomings.

 

[Mier]

The software-based transponder is a really good idea in my opinion. Effectively equivalent to ADS-B. No downside at all unless you are flying illegally, so no doubt it will be really unpopular around here.

Why on earth would DJI want to ground their aircraft? That sounds like a very shaky business model. And how is adding a transponder capability equivalent to "asserting control of their(?) drones"?

1. Perhaps it is and perhaps it can be used to setup a network of listening stations to monitor drone traffic. To you no big deal until that day you're flying 400ft and run over a strong updraft which throws you up to 425ft. How you're in violation and your transponder just ratted you out and a week later a ticket shows up in the mail from the FAA. People make mistakes and people act with malicious intent we have to be careful not to punish someone that just made the honest mistake. If that means letting a few mischievous types fly regularly over 400 feet who gives a flip.

2. There could be any number of reasons. They could just feel like being contrary that day the point you're missing is that they have the power with this upcoming update to make a whole area a NFZ regardless of your rights as an owner. Read the article I linked, its as much about ownership as it is the repair. When I parted with my hard earned money for a flying camera, it belongs to me does it not?

 

[smiller]

I don't think anyone is condoning reckless or irresponsible flying, the problem is that the regulatory environment is not always clear, or put another way... if everyone were required to adhere to a strict interpretation of existing laws and official guidelines (never beyond VLOS, never over any persons or vehicles, never fly at any altitude within 5 miles of a rarely used grass strip or heliport without contacting... 'someone', etc.) then for many the drone would be unusable. It's easy to say 'you should always fly legally!', but what does that really mean? In strict terms it means you can only fly over the desert (and even then only parts of the desert ).

 

[Mier]

It's in DJI's best-interest that their products be used responsibly.
At a minimum it has been demonstrated here, and in some cases boastfully, that not everyone can be trusted to do so.
Limiting use, and possibly reducing repeat sales, may be a calculated decision rather than face litigation and other PR losses.
Given their resources I'd bet they are confident they know what they are doing but time will tell.
So far history is on their side with regards to continued growth through innovation despite their other shortcomings.

So who do you have to decide for, the majority which flies pretty legal or do you restrict everyone because of the few?

 

[N017RW]

So who do you have to decide for, the majority which flies pretty legal or do you restrict everyone because of the few?

It's always the least common denominator.

 

[Melvoid]

Confused at this article particularly the part that says if you do update live camera streaming will be lost and flight distance and height will be decreased ???!

Kinakailangan ang Pagtiyak sa Seguridad

I think it's just a poorly-written sentence. I think they're saying the restrictions will take place if you don't do the update.

 

[Melvoid]

OK, so, bottom line. If I do nothing, and there are consequences... will they show up this coming weekend?

 

[Crack The Sky]

1. Perhaps it is and perhaps it can be used to setup a network of listening stations to monitor drone traffic. To you no big deal until that day you're flying 400ft and run over a strong updraft which throws you up to 425ft. How you're in violation and your transponder just ratted you out and a week later a ticket shows up in the mail from the FAA. People make mistakes and people act with malicious intent we have to be careful not to punish someone that just made the honest mistake. If that means letting a few mischievous types fly regularly over 400 feet who gives a flip.

2. There could be any number of reasons. They could just feel like being contrary that day the point you're missing is that they have the power with this upcoming update to make a whole area a NFZ regardless of your rights as an owner. Read the article I linked, its as much about ownership as it is the repair. When I parted with my hard earned money for a flying camera, it belongs to me does it not?

I give a flip. There is a system in place to "not punish someone who has made an honest mistake". But, responsible preflight planning has always been a legally required part of operating in the NAS. On a day with the potential for "strong updrafts", flying at the maximum allowable height and then being lifted beyond the maximum allowed height would & should bring a "careless & reckless operation" violation, in addition to the violation for busting the maximum altitude. That "honest mistake" was foreseeable, caused by pilot error, and could have resulted in an air disaster with loss of innocent life. Transponders don't "rat you out". They report your position and alert those you share the sky with, that you have deviated from your expected flight path. That's good. Real good.
2. Yes, the flying camera belongs to you. You are just not allowed to use it in a growing number of places.

 

[smiller]

You are just not allowed to use it in a growing number of places.

To say the least. This current concern (subject of the thread) may or may not turn out to be anything problematic in the short term, but the ever-narrowing permissible places to fly (and that narrowing process has only just begun) has me seriously thinking of selling my equipment and leaving the hobby. I understand all of the very good reasons for all of the regulatory concerns but the net result is that it is rapidly getting to the point where it just isn't fun anymore. That may not be an issue for commercial operations but for consumers it's everything, and... it's quickly becoming just not worth it.

 

[N017RW]

To say the least. This current concern (subject of the thread) may or may not turn out to be anything problematic in the short term, but the ever-narrowing permissible places to fly (and that narrowing process has only just begun) has me seriously thinking of selling my equipment and leaving the hobby. I understand all of the very good reasons for all of the regulatory concerns but the net result is that it is rapidly getting to the point where it just isn't fun anymore. That may not be an issue for commercial operations but for consumers it's everything, and... it's quickly becoming just not worth it.

MRs are just another type of r/c aircraft. You should try fixed-wing!

 

[Crack The Sky]

MRs are just another type of r/c aircraft. You should try fixed-wing!

That's for sure , my friend. The drone people have no appreciation for how simplistic the rules they have to follow are, compared to flying a "real" airplane.

 

[N017RW]

Agreed. Don't want to hijack thread though.
My apologies to the site/mods/members.

 

[Crack The Sky]

To say the least. This current concern (subject of the thread) may or may not turn out to be anything problematic in the short term, but the ever-narrowing permissible places to fly (and that narrowing process has only just begun) has me seriously thinking of selling my equipment and leaving the hobby. I understand all of the very good reasons for all of the regulatory concerns but the net result is that it is rapidly getting to the point where it just isn't fun anymore. That may not be an issue for commercial operations but for consumers it's everything, and... it's quickly becoming just not worth it.

Well, if it makes you feel any better about your possible decision to get out, my father, (after 50+ years of flying "real" airplanes), one day up and sold his because, "they've taken the fun out of it".
Personally, I'm also seriously considering dumping my P4, because frankly after a lifetime of flying, it's plain boring.