Demonstration of why Altitude Limits should be removed

Do you agree or disagree with DJI's over-reaching flight restrictions?


  • Total voters
    151
Did you see that all offending software, is removed from the software in the new version? You will be able to fly, completely anonymous.
I am no more worried about DJI than Microsoft, Android or the numerous software's that upgrade when they want.
No I haven't seen that. I'm in disbelief. :rolleyes: Can you point me to the thread?
 
No I haven't seen that. I'm in disbelief. :rolleyes: Can you point me to the thread?
Got it on my Pixel SO, Google. They admitted data, mostly what apps were installed on the phone or Tablet, was collected by a 3rd party who used that for profit. This was due to access granted for other purposes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: embayweather
Started at ground level in the valley and flew to 2400 feet altitude yet was never more than ~400 off the ground.

PILOTS should be responsible for their actions, NOT DJI. DJI is missing a huge hole in their safety program. Buy maintaining strict control over the hardware, DJI is opening itself up to lawsuits. Why would one sue or charge only the pilot when DJI is publicly pushing flight restrictions in the name of public safety? I'd go after DJI for the failure of it's advertised safety features, no matter what mods are made to the craft. Coupled with the fact other drone manufactures are now selling drones with 'no geofencing' as a feature is proving DJI has done more harm than good to the industry.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

I agree with DJl in limiting its flight restrictions to 400 feet; and it's their corporate responsibility to ensure that every drone that hits the skies comply with FAA regulation. If something was to happen, for example, a collision at 600 feet in the air, the owner cannot fault or attempt to sue the company. If owners wish to go beyond 400 feet limit, they must do so under their judgement and be fully responsible for their actions. Our society wants companies to shell out millions in a class action suit but no one wants to confess to thier errors if something happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AyeYo and andy_k
I agree with the altitude limitations...for now. DJI is looking at long term integration. There are SO MANY new drone operators entering the airspace that may not be as skilled as many of the operators on this forum. All it takes is a few bad mistakes and poor decisions of a few pilots to bring the whole thing down for everyone. I think limitations are wise for the future growth of the industry.
 
If limitations are not set, people will always push the limits, it appears to be human nature.
 
FWIW, British pilots like to do this--or at least their military does. Their civilian flights within patterns usually do too. Acrobatic pilots like to use QFE as well, to save them from having to do EXTRA math and inverted spins at the same time. Sailplane pilots who plan to just fly locally, sometimes use QFE too.

I definitely understand the necessity of using AGL reference for acro flight.
 
I agree with DJl in limiting its flight restrictions to 400 feet; and it's their corporate responsibility to ensure that every drone that hits the skies comply with FAA regulation.
DJI drones are being sold all over the world and the US are a small part of it.
DJI has to take a lot more into consideration than FAA requirements.
 
DJI drones are being sold all over the world and the US are a small part of it.
DJI has to take a lot more into consideration than FAA requirements.

True, but many developed nations standards are the same if not stricter than US rules.
 
Here is my take. I agree with them locking down the system for anyone who flies under the hobby rules of whatever country they are in. In the US its "Special Rules for Model Aircraft." I don't agree with them being locked down for anyone flying under formal rules, be it a Canadian SFOC or the US's Part 107 or 333 to the Part 91 rules or whatever system is used in another country.

This is an unfortunate thing because of the lowest common denominator. The guy who just went to Best Buy and picked up a Mavic, Spark or P4P and spent maybe ten minutes reading the quick start guide, plugs in a battery and flies. That guy gets a little comfortable in his abilities and has an unqualified belief in what the system can do. Then he decides to take it out in areas where he shouldn't and does stupid stuff all the time.

Then there is the ill-informed belief that if you are under the hobby rules, that somehow you can fly and do whatever you want with impunity. That simply isn't the case. But the guy who just bought his drone from best buy is completely unaware of section 336 of the USPL 112-95. Under hobby rules you can go above 400ft AGL as long as you are adhering to the full scope of the 336. All flying under the 336 directs everyone to be flying under the safety guidelines of a national community based organization. Under that part the only relevant one to be recognized at the moment is the AMA. The FAA is going to be setting qualifying minimum standards for future CBO's probably next year. Under the AMA you are not supposed to fly where model aircraft activities are prohibited. Not supposed to fly in a careless or reckless manner. Not supposed to fly over unprotected persons, vehicles vessels and structures. Yet we see youtube videos constantly showing people flying over highways, around major metro areas and in airspace where they probably did not contact every airport within 5 statute miles. Yes private strips and heliports qualify under this definition. That is another part of the 336. The FAA states on their website an airport operator may not deny the flight, however you continuance to do so maybe evidence that you conducted an unsafe operation of a model aircraft in the NAS. The last part of the 336 has a clause that states, "nothing in this section shall prohibit the administrator from pursing enforcement action against unsafe model aircraft activity in the NAS."

Unfortunately there has been a lack of enforcement action as the FAA does not have the resources to catch every idiot around the country on a daily basis. As a result the FAA as well as other governments have been working with the major manufacturers to lock the systems down top prevent some of the buffoonery.

In an ideal world you would have a system that prohibits flight in unauthorized areas, but would let yo unlock that system right away, but the system has your contact info and goes to a database to the governing agencies. This would prevent 90% of the BS flying out there. Since I fly under authorizations and COA's and the FAA knows what I do anyway I would not be against it.
 
Here is my take. I agree with them locking down the system for anyone who flies under the hobby rules of whatever country they are in. In the US its "Special Rules for Model Aircraft." I don't agree with them being locked down for anyone flying under formal rules, be it a Canadian SFOC or the US's Part 107 or 333 to the Part 91 rules or whatever system is used in another country.

This is an unfortunate thing because of the lowest common denominator. The guy who just went to Best Buy and picked up a Mavic, Spark or P4P and spent maybe ten minutes reading the quick start guide, plugs in a battery and flies. That guy gets a little comfortable in his abilities and has an unqualified belief in what the system can do. Then he decides to take it out in areas where he shouldn't and does stupid stuff all the time.

Then there is the ill-informed belief that if you are under the hobby rules, that somehow you can fly and do whatever you want with impunity. That simply isn't the case. But the guy who just bought his drone from best buy is completely unaware of section 336 of the USPL 112-95. Under hobby rules you can go above 400ft AGL as long as you are adhering to the full scope of the 336. All flying under the 336 directs everyone to be flying under the safety guidelines of a national community based organization. Under that part the only relevant one to be recognized at the moment is the AMA. The FAA is going to be setting qualifying minimum standards for future CBO's probably next year. Under the AMA you are not supposed to fly where model aircraft activities are prohibited. Not supposed to fly in a careless or reckless manner. Not supposed to fly over unprotected persons, vehicles vessels and structures. Yet we see youtube videos constantly showing people flying over highways, around major metro areas and in airspace where they probably did not contact every airport within 5 statute miles. Yes private strips and heliports qualify under this definition. That is another part of the 336. The FAA states on their website an airport operator may not deny the flight, however you continuance to do so maybe evidence that you conducted an unsafe operation of a model aircraft in the NAS. The last part of the 336 has a clause that states, "nothing in this section shall prohibit the administrator from pursing enforcement action against unsafe model aircraft activity in the NAS."

Unfortunately there has been a lack of enforcement action as the FAA does not have the resources to catch every idiot around the country on a daily basis. As a result the FAA as well as other governments have been working with the major manufacturers to lock the systems down top prevent some of the buffoonery.

In an ideal world you would have a system that prohibits flight in unauthorized areas, but would let yo unlock that system right away, but the system has your contact info and goes to a database to the governing agencies. This would prevent 90% of the BS flying out there. Since I fly under authorizations and COA's and the FAA knows what I do anyway I would not be against it.

"In an ideal world you would have a system that prohibits flight in unauthorized areas, but would let yo unlock that system right away, but the system has your contact info and goes to a database to the governing agencies. This would prevent 90% of the BS flying out there."​

That's a fine proposal considering that air traffic operations are always subject to monitoring. Cue the outraged "Big Brother is watching you" objections.
 
."​
Cue the outraged "Big Brother is watching you" objections.

Yet they will have no problem posting their illegal flights all over youtube and facebook. Its funny too, how these people will be the first to claim they can do what they want over other peoples property because the FAA owns the airspace. At the same time they will object to the FAA knowing what they are doing in said airspace.
 
Started at ground level in the valley and flew to 2400 feet altitude yet was never more than ~400 off the ground.

PILOTS should be responsible for their actions, NOT DJI. DJI is missing a huge hole in their safety program. Buy maintaining strict control over the hardware, DJI is opening itself up to lawsuits. Why would one sue or charge only the pilot when DJI is publicly pushing flight restrictions in the name of public safety? I'd go after DJI for the failure of it's advertised safety features, no matter what mods are made to the craft. Coupled with the fact other drone manufactures are now selling drones with 'no geofencing' as a feature is proving DJI has done more harm than good to the industry.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
I would have to vote yes only because some do not appreciate the importance of not flying at an altitude used by air traffic or just don't care. However having said that the limitation is contrary to FFA Part 107 which states flight is allowed to exceed 400ft. to avoid an accident. It also states that it is 400ft. above a structures height within a 400ft. radius. For example if a Building is 300 ft. within 400ft. you are permitted to fly 300+400=700ft. As I understand it airplanes would not be allowed to fly under 800ft. 300+500 at such a location. This is especially going to be a real problem for commercial operators unless DJI provides a work around for 107 certified pilots. NY State is considering legislation that will make it an offence for any recreational/hobby operator to fly over 400ft. and within 5 miles of any airport period. No notification, just don't fly. Which is why I will be taking the 107 exam shortly.
 
I would have to vote yes only because some do not appreciate the importance of not flying at an altitude used by air traffic or just don't care. However having said that the limitation is contrary to FFA Part 107 which states flight is allowed to exceed 400ft. to avoid an accident. It also states that it is 400ft. above a structures height within a 400ft. radius. For example if a Building is 300 ft. within 400ft. you are permitted to fly 300+400=700ft. As I understand it airplanes would not be allowed to fly under 800ft. 300+500 at such a location. This is especially going to be a real problem for commercial operators unless DJI provides a work around for 107 certified pilots. NY State is considering legislation that will make it an offence for any recreational/hobby operator to fly over 400ft. and within 5 miles of any airport period. No notification, just don't fly. Which is why I will be taking the 107 exam shortly.

But DJI does not limit you to 400 ft - the firmware limit is 1640 ft, which will take care of most, though not all, buildings.
 
But DJI does not limit you to 400 ft - the firmware limit is 1640 ft, which will take care of most, though not all, buildings.
Thanks for the reply. I think the question is should DJI have a mandatory firmware update with a 400 ft. altitude and 1/2 mile distance limit. Also on a second note 107 allows you to fly as far a you want provided you have visual observers that you remain in constant radio contact with,positioned so that the drone is in constant VLOS with you and/or the observers. So again such a restriction is contrary to part 107
 
Thanks for the reply. I think the question is should DJI have a mandatory firmware update with a 400 ft. altitude and 1/2 mile distance limit. Also on a second note 107 allows you to fly as far a you want provided you have visual observers that you remain in constant radio contact with,positioned so that the drone is in constant VLOS with you and/or the observers. So again such a restriction is contrary to part 107

The question at the head of the thread is "Do you agree or disagree with DJI's over-reaching flight restrictions?", not "Do you think that DJI should implement further restrictions?", so I assumed that was what you were commenting on.

I agree that the restrictions that you mention would be problematic for some Part 107 operations and also more restrictive than Part 101 conditions.
 
The question at the head of the thread is "Do you agree or disagree with DJI's over-reaching flight restrictions?", not "Do you think that DJI should implement further restrictions?", so I assumed that was what you were commenting on.

I agree that the restrictions that you mention would be problematic for some Part 107 operations and also more restrictive than Part 101 conditions.

I stand corrected, geez all that typing for naught. Anyway why would someone even consider flying at 1600ft ? Is this a thread about personnel freedom and possibly putting others in harms way versus common sense? I wonder what it would feel like the moment aircraft hit your drone, especially in controlled airspace.
Many drone pilots don't know that besides class A B C D airspace, most of the US is covered in class E controlled airspace which has a floor of 1200ft extending to 18000 ft. unless designated class E with a floor of 700ft. usually with a 10 mile radius of some midsize or small airports, and as previously noted air traffic operates at 500ft. and above.
 
Last edited:
This is a bit of a mystery to me, my assumption has been that altitude limits were in relation to the home point. To fly in mountainous or hilly terrain, I imagine you would need to take off from the highest point or set altitude limits based on the altitude of the highest bit of ground you intend to fly over. I consider it unlikely that the aircraft has an internal map that contains a map of ground level, though I suppose it could download a localized map from the phone commection for a limited area.
 
Beautiful place to fly, where is this located? Your state is very pretty looks like a forest. Don’t worry about the height & enjoy. [emoji256][emoji111]️[emoji573]
 
Here is my take. I agree with them locking down the system for anyone who flies under the hobby rules of whatever country they are in. In the US its "Special Rules for Model Aircraft." I don't agree with them being locked down for anyone flying under formal rules, be it a Canadian SFOC or the US's Part 107 or 333 to the Part 91 rules or whatever system is used in another country.

This is an unfortunate thing because of the lowest common denominator. The guy who just went to Best Buy and picked up a Mavic, Spark or P4P and spent maybe ten minutes reading the quick start guide, plugs in a battery and flies. That guy gets a little comfortable in his abilities and has an unqualified belief in what the system can do. Then he decides to take it out in areas where he shouldn't and does stupid stuff all the time.

Then there is the ill-informed belief that if you are under the hobby rules, that somehow you can fly and do whatever you want with impunity. That simply isn't the case. But the guy who just bought his drone from best buy is completely unaware of section 336 of the USPL 112-95. Under hobby rules you can go above 400ft AGL as long as you are adhering to the full scope of the 336. All flying under the 336 directs everyone to be flying under the safety guidelines of a national community based organization. Under that part the only relevant one to be recognized at the moment is the AMA. The FAA is going to be setting qualifying minimum standards for future CBO's probably next year. Under the AMA you are not supposed to fly where model aircraft activities are prohibited. Not supposed to fly in a careless or reckless manner. Not supposed to fly over unprotected persons, vehicles vessels and structures. Yet we see youtube videos constantly showing people flying over highways, around major metro areas and in airspace where they probably did not contact every airport within 5 statute miles. Yes private strips and heliports qualify under this definition. That is another part of the 336. The FAA states on their website an airport operator may not deny the flight, however you continuance to do so maybe evidence that you conducted an unsafe operation of a model aircraft in the NAS. The last part of the 336 has a clause that states, "nothing in this section shall prohibit the administrator from pursing enforcement action against unsafe model aircraft activity in the NAS."

Unfortunately there has been a lack of enforcement action as the FAA does not have the resources to catch every idiot around the country on a daily basis. As a result the FAA as well as other governments have been working with the major manufacturers to lock the systems down top prevent some of the buffoonery.

In an ideal world you would have a system that prohibits flight in unauthorized areas, but would let yo unlock that system right away, but the system has your contact info and goes to a database to the governing agencies. This would prevent 90% of the BS flying out there. Since I fly under authorizations and COA's and the FAA knows what I do anyway I would not be against it.


I've brought this up a million and one times. Prepare to be barraged by hoards of people that don't have the reading comprehension to follow along with Section 336.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,935
Latest member
Pauos31