DJI Mandatory, uninterruptible actions are wrong, legally actionable

[Dorian Taddei]

Small problem. You're flying in a No-Fly near a Class B Airport. YOu've managed to fly low, avoiding one altitude tier. As you ascend, you enter `restricted airspace," and "RTH means flying in a straight line through even MORE volume of that airspace, perhaps right across a flightpath. See the problem.

No doubt the forced landing of an aircraft has legal implications, but you're NEVER make any law stick on the Chinese. How you going to do that? Might affect their standing doing business in America, but we're Not the only client base, and certainly we've got some of the most strictly controlled airspaces in the world. What to do?

Maybe they can add a button with a pin-prick text to detect a 'mormon' DNA signature? Better yet, how about DJI makes their multi-rotors cease working if a notice comes through with your name attached due to a lawsuit or registered FAA offense?

No easy solution.

 

[Tenly]

Ok now there's a solution i can agree with, a safe RTH initiated at the point of NFZ breach. That way we stay in control of our machines and our responseability. Absolutely head of the logical nail good job. And also, thank you for opening this subject up it definitely needs to be addressed and solved before, like others have already stated "before someone is hurt or worse.

But - the original post was about a no fly zone that just suddenly appeared where there was previously none. Obviously a software error.

A better solution then the one above is to backtrack along the same path used to enter the NFZ - but even that is not a perfect solution - especially if the software is flakey enough to allow you to get to the center of an NFZ before realizing that you're in an NFZ.

Those that think there is an easy solution to the problem do not have a complete understanding of the problem.

In light of flakey software, bad data and faulty sensors - I think the best way to deal with it is to allow the pilot to remain in control of the drone. Send his flight logs to the authorities - play a loud alert on his RC so that he knows what he's doing is wrong - but to think that the software can make better decisions about safety than a human pilot - in all situations is ridiculous with the current generation of software capabilities.

So - although there's no easy, perfect solution - it's pretty clear that "landing immediately" is one of the worst things that could happen. There are plenty of parks, schools, highways and other populated areas that exist in No Fly Zones and "landing immediately" carries much more risk of causing an injury than almost anything else does. Especially considering that not every NFZ is a huge risk to begin with. If a remote farmer has a crop duster that he uses once a month or even once a week and has a runway on his property that he uses - then the entire area within 5 miles around that runway is an NFZ. Obviously entering and flying in that NFZ does not carry nearly the same risk that the NFZ around an international airport does!

 

[Dorian Taddei]

Naturally, the ONLY solution is for the pilot to stay in command. Additionally, I cannot see any automatic solution as smart as human real-time control either.

 

[Tenly]

Off topic with a couple of random thoughts....

If drones are here to stay - as they obviously are - maybe there also needs to be a change to the existing rules for other aircraft - personal, passenger, helicopter, gliders, etc - especially when they are flying below 400 feet. "Sharing" the airspace should mean just that. All aircraft - piloted or pilotless - co-operating for the safe enjoyment of all. Just because the drones are the new kids on the block shouldn't necessarily mean they have fewer rights to use the airspace then other recreational pilots.

Also...with drones being so small and admittedly difficult to see, why wouldn't one of the proposed rules be to equip recreational drones with a beacon that broadcasts its identifier and current position once every 2 or 3 seconds. Anyone else that plans to use the lower altitudes could equip their craft with a receiver that listens for these beacons and notifies them when a drone is close. Drones could/should also be equipped with receivers that listen for beacons broadcast from other nearby aircraft - drones, airplanes, helicopters or whatever - so that they can take realistically determine if evasive action is warranted and what the best course of action to take would be. Perhaps the next generation of drones will be manufactured with these or similar safety features and be subject to fewer restrictions because of them.

 

[Dorian Taddei]

I may not want anyone knowing where I am at a given time? Plus, whose to pay for this? Transmitted signals of that strength (microwave ƒ) are also dangerous. Radio waves are already too full of noise.

Untenable ideas as I see it. Flood lamps at dusk ... IS a good idea.

 

[Tenly]

I may not want anyone knowing where I am at a given time? Plus, whose to pay for this? Transmitted signals of that strength (microwave ƒ) are also dangerous. Radio waves are already too full of noise.

Untenable ideas as I see it. Flood lamps at dusk ... IS a good idea.

At what strength? I didn't specify the strength - or that it should be in the microwave band. You make a lot of ridiculous assumptions and then base your disagreement on those ridiculous assumptions. A range of 1km would probably be enough. That's only a fraction of the range that the last 2 generations of Phantoms have....so the technology is here - and the radiation is safer than that put out by your RC.

The location information being sent would only be active while in flight and it would send the location of the drone - not the location of the operator. The drone already sends full telemetry to the RC - once per second, it would also just need to send it to anyone listening. With a little thought and some clever engineering - It *could* also be made to work in such a way that the existing telemetry stream that is sent to the remote, is broadcast openly - instead of only being sent to your RC. This would allow them to implement such a feature without any additional transmitter being required and without any additional power drain on the battery (and without any extra hardware costs!)

As for "I may not want anyone knowing where I am" - well, that's a ridiculous thing to say - and it identifies you as part of the problem. For what reason could you possibly want to operate your drone in stealth mode? Intentionally breaking the rules? Peeping into a neighbours window? Flying near an airport? Flying above the clouds? For the safety of all - your drones position in the air *should* be known at all times to any other aircraft in the vicinity - once you take flight, you should not have any expectation of privacy - and you shouldn't need it.

The goal is to make the next generation of drones so safe that the restrictions on their usage is relaxed so that we can all fly higher, fly further and fly in more places than we can today. Flood lamps are not going to achieve that.

 

[42FrankZ]

If a remote farmer has a crop duster that he uses once a month or even once a week and has a runway on his property that he uses - then the entire area within 5 miles around that runway is an NFZ. Obviously entering and flying in that NFZ does not carry nearly the same risk that the NFZ around an international airport does!

That's not true. You have to notify, but it does not create a NFZ.

 

[BigAl07]

If drones are here to stay - as they obviously are - maybe there also needs to be a change to the existing rules for other aircraft - personal, passenger, helicopter, gliders, etc - especially when they are flying below 400 feet. "Sharing" the airspace should mean just that. All aircraft - piloted or pilotless - co-operating for the safe enjoyment of all. Just because the drones are the new kids on the block shouldn't necessarily mean they have fewer rights to use the airspace then other recreational pilots

So you're asking the whole manned aviation industry to bow down to serve our "hobby"? The vast majority of "Aviation" is now work rather than enjoyment and if you think that Aviation $$ is going to just sit back and let our toys change the playing field I'm afraid you may be in for a reality check. The very moment airlines start seeing a drop in their revenue because of our hobby/toy drones (passengers stop buying tickets because of concern over drone striking the airliner) you can bet your bottom dollar some new legislation will magically appear (seemingly over night and out of no where) making it nearly impossible to even fly around our house. Like it or not $$ talks and when big $$ talks law makers listen and react with a sense of urgency.

Also...with drones being so small and admittedly difficult to see, why wouldn't one of the proposed rules be to equip recreational drones with a beacon that broadcasts its identifier and current position once every 2 or 3 seconds. Anyone else that plans to use the lower altitudes could equip their craft with a receiver that listens for these beacons and notifies them when a drone is close. Drones could/should also be equipped with receivers that listen for beacons broadcast from other nearby aircraft - drones, airplanes, helicopters or whatever - so that they can take realistically determine if evasive action is warranted and what the best course of action to take would be. Perhaps the next generation of drones will be manufactured with these or similar safety features and be subject to fewer restrictions because of them.

This technology is already here but it adds complexity, weight and $$ to the aircraft. Most of us are already complaining about the COST of these toy aircraft and others are complaining about lack of flight time. You're only going to add to both sides of that coin at the same time. Right now the only near consumer grade UAS with ADS–B is the DJI M210 w/RTK. The M210 w/RTK has ADS–B (Send only) capability and the price tag on it starts around $13K and that's with NO cameras.

 

[Tenly]

That's not true. You have to notify, but it does not create a NFZ.

Except that it is true - in Canada as of last week. And it's actually slightly more than 5 miles, it's 9km.

 

[bacano115]

I updated mine and it tried to land in the ocean 100 feet away. Any way we can downgrade the firmware? I haven't flown in 3 weeks because I'm scared to lose the drone.

 

[Tenly]

So you're asking the whole manned aviation industry to bow down to serve our "hobby"?

In your first statement, you misquoted me twice. I assumed that the rest of your response was based on those misquotes and therefore completely irrelevant to my post but I reluctantly skimmed it anyhow and found that you missed the point on a lot of things.

I specified other "recreational pilots" and you converted that to "the entire aviation industry". I also used the words "share" and "co-operate" which you translated to a demand that they "bow down".

It seems hat you're content to just sit back and say - there is no solution rather than working to help find one or even acknowledging that changes are required.

Big business does not own the skies. With a little effort and some co-operation between all interested parties, a system can be developed that makes it safe for all that want to use them. The current system was put in place to handle all of the traffic that was expected at the time it was developed - and it was pretty good. But now that drones have come on the scene in a big way - the existing rules need to be changed - and they WILL be changed. If not specifically for you or I - for Amazon and for other businesses that want to use drones in new and innovative ways. Technology and life march on my friend and whether you like change or not - it's a coming!

As far as cost is concerned - that's a temporary inconvenience and will decrease as time goes on and the feature becomes standard. I paid $1500 for my first Garmin GPS - and that's all it was - a GPS navigator that could only hold maps of 3 states at a time and the maps were static. Now GPS technology comes included in a $150 phone that also does a hundred other functions that were each over $1000 when they were first released. So yeah - in the short term there will be an additional cost - but I'm looking for a long term solution. If you can't afford a drone that includes new technology that makes it safer for everyone - then go ahead and fly your existing drone around your backyard. Those of us that want to fly more often, in more places, with fewer restrictions - might be willing to shell out a few extra dollars in the short term to do so.

 

[BigAl07]

.....

We will just have to agree to disagree and see what the future holds.

 

[Tenly]

We will just have to agree to disagree and see what the future holds.

Sure. I can live with that.

 

[m0j0]

sorry I just read that whole thread and my head hurts . these are still toys hobby grade also as a hobbyist we have a lot more lead way than some one with a 107

Actually that is not true. As a 107 pilot I can fly either way. Under the rules of 107 or as a hobbyist. Depends on what I'm doing and why I'm flying. So by definition, I have more leeway as a certified 107 pilot than someone without a cert.

 

[m0j0]

I'm praying GoPro Karma is it. It's looking like it just might be.

Your prayers went unanswered.

 

[m0j0]

Try this analogy, if you prefer: You are driving your car ?

Whelp that's where the analogy ends.... 2 pound sUAS landing at 5 mph, 2500 pound car traveling at 30 mph..

Perceived danger = sUAS
Real danger = vehicle

 

[m0j0]

At ALL times it is better to give a human pilot control rather than BLIND automated software.

Not always.. there are documented air accidents that could have been avoided if the pilot simply released the controls.

I will also say there are examples on this board where letting the Phantom fly itself would have resulted in the safe return of the quad. I'm going to say most crashes on this board are due to human error. Yeah if you are a muppet and set the automated features incorrectly yeah it may cause an accident but once again that's human error.

 

[dwallersv]

Naturally, the ONLY solution is for the pilot to stay in command. Additionally, I cannot see any automatic solution as smart as human real-time control either.

No.

The best solution is whichever one minimizes risk to bystanders. This includes people in manned aircraft.

Not entirely sure which solution meets that criteria, but I'm sure 100% pilot control (i.e. no automated response at all by the UAV) or landing immediately are not that solution.

The nature of consumer UAV technology is such that pilot training and the "filtering" that occurs because of the difficulty and effort involved can no longer be relied upon as a means to ensure responsible operation of this new aircraft type. As such, where 100% pilot control is NOT the best solution (and with these aircraft it clearly is not), some automated assist is necessary to protect the safety of the public in these circumstances.

 

[Tenly]

No.

The best solution is whichever one minimizes risk to bystanders. This includes people in manned aircraft.

Not entirely sure which solution meets that criteria, but I'm sure 100% pilot control (i.e. no automated response at all by the UAV) or landing immediately are not that solution.

The nature of consumer UAV technology is such that pilot training and the "filtering" that occurs because of the difficulty and effort involved can no longer be relied upon as a means to ensure responsible operation of this new aircraft type. As such, where 100% pilot control is NOT the best solution (and with these aircraft it clearly is not), some automated assist is necessary to protect the safety of the public in these circumstances.

No.

The pilot must be able to take control of the craft at any time. Automated systems can and should be put in place to aid and assist the pilot - or to perform "safe" actions when the pilot is not capable of taking control (such as a defective RC or a medical emergency with the pilot) - but if a pilot wants control - he must be able to take it. Some of the times that this occurs, it will be because the pilot can see that the automated actions are going to cause a problem and the pilot will take control to avoid them. Some of the time the pilot will take control and make the situation worse. But these are both corner cases. The vast majority of the time - nothing bad will happen either way.

The issue comes down to blame and liability. How can a person be held responsible or liable for the actions a device took - if he had no REASONABLE opportunity to prevent the actions? He can't.

The pilots must be able to take control of the aircraft away from the automated systems so that it is easy to hold the pilot accountable for the actions of their drone. If automated software takes that control away and causes an injury to someone or damage to their property - the wronged party may have a lot of trouble being awarded reparations because the incident was not the pilots fault and it would be difficult and expensive to sue the drone manufacturer.

 

[Beagle1]

I will offer two points.

- the autolanding gibberish is bad code. On my p3p, in areas around DC that are legally flyable, it takes off, but 20-30 seconds in, an autolanding occurs. My theory is that there are numerous processes going on with within the aircraft and app that are conflicting.

-DJI NFZs are a waste and won't actually prevent anything. It is the same thing with gun control. If I lived in a state and guns were legally limited, but I was still intent on hurting people, I could just rent a truck and plow it into people, buy a pressure cooker, etc.

Same hold true for drones. If I really wanted to do something bad with one, I would buy a drone with no limitations.

I think DJI did the whole NFZ to just cover their ***.

Personally, I deal with the NFZ crap because DJI drones are still the best bang for your buck.