It's a very interesting point raised here. One I'm sure the Legal business will LOVE when it happens. They will be able to buy themselves a Leer Jet from the proceeds! 
DJI Mandatory, uninterruptible actions are wrong, legally actionable
- Thread starter Drestin Black
- Start date
Ok gang... let's stop the insults and such here. If it keeps up this thread will get closed.
Play nice or move along and play somewhere else.
Play nice or move along and play somewhere else.
N017RW
Premium Pilot
I think the FAA has done a good job integrating drones considering many of them, like the Phantom, are just toys with no gov't. mandated or required components or functionality.
The notion of anybody being in complete or total control of a consumer-grade radio controlled toy with no redundancy seems a bit shortsighted.
Similar to the continual comparison of these toys to other forms of manned transportation.
The notion of anybody being in complete or total control of a consumer-grade radio controlled toy with no redundancy seems a bit shortsighted.
Similar to the continual comparison of these toys to other forms of manned transportation.
(Small) Drone fliers are not subject to all of the same rules and regulations as the other aircrafts and pilots. These rules are already greatly relaxed. Sure, they come from the same book and some are the same for everybody but, very few are. If we (drone fliers) would be subjected to all of the rules and regulation as the rest of civil aviation, very few of us could afford time and expense to participate in the exercise. Heck, many of us would not find enough space to keep all of the required paperwork.
As for "what the thread is about" (as somebody else tried to school me about), my understanding is that the thread is, or at least was, about DJI legal responsibility. I think that one day, that responsibility will be decided by court. When the day comes, I'm convinced that the court will be forced to look at the actions of the pilot and take into the account to what extend actions of the pilot affected the final outcome. I would not be surprised that if the court decides that: the drone flier should've being aware of the possibility of loosing the control over the drone hence should not put the drone in a position where loosing the control may result in damage to property or somebody's wellbeing and releasing DJI from any responsibility. It will all come down to who's got better lawyers and, somehow, I am convinced that DJI can afford better lawyers than most of us ever could...
That's all from me on the subject.
Last edited:
in the end you are responsible for what happens to your drone full stop if you intentionally fly it in an urban area and over people and it falls out of the sky who's fault is it, the Dji/ the drone for failing out of the sky or you for putting it over the urban centre / people in the first place.
Oh and If you want to sell your drone and it's cheap enough there is a section on this site for that, I'm sure someone will buy it -)
Last time I checked it was illegal to fly it over people and urban centres in the first place for that very reason.
The funny part about all of this is that this is just a very expensive toy
And has the ability to fail at anytime because it's a toy
,why you would equate this to a car or and aircraft is beyond me lets be real about this.
Oh and If you want to sell your drone and it's cheap enough there is a section on this site for that, I'm sure someone will buy it -)
Last time I checked it was illegal to fly it over people and urban centres in the first place for that very reason.
The funny part about all of this is that this is just a very expensive toy
And has the ability to fail at anytime because it's a toy
,why you would equate this to a car or and aircraft is beyond me lets be real about this.
Unless the aircraft is flown AROUND a NFZ, attempts to come back, hits the "back side" of the NFZ. RTH would send it through the NFZ - what then?
I keep looking for this and, well, it is not illegal to fly over people or in urban centers, unless I am flying under part 107, then it is just illegal to fly over people not directly involved. I fly as a hobbyist and I fly under community guidelines which suggest I should not fly over crowds but does NOT mandate that I MUST not.
Clearly it should then go around - anything but simply plop down out of control
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
I want to increase safety. I do not ask to remove NFZs.
I want the pilot to always be In charge of his craft. And that means, enjoy any automatic feature he'd like BUT, ALWAYS be able to resume manual control of his flight worthy craft.
When you lose connection and auto home self initiates, wonderful RTH does magic and hopefully soon you see that signal return and, I'll bet Almost everyone cancels and resumes flying.
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
The funny part to me is that I've repeatedly explained this but somehow it's missed over and over.
Of this is just a toy, then we should have toy rules with toy police issue toy punishments. THIS "toy" has the FAA potential issuing federal arrests and charges, up to felonies, and fines and jail. Those are not how toys are treated so please step off the toy defense, it's childish.
I am responsible for anything my "toy" does so therefore I insist that I be able to pilot it at all times. I should be able to turn off automatic landings! That's all I'm asking for!!!
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
I think the pilot should always have the control . When I was flying my Cessna and getting my license, I was told I had the final choice of what my actions were even if I had to disobey the tower. I am PIC and only I can be responsible for my actions. ...good or bad.
Exactly my entire point - doesn't matter the size of the vehicle - if there is a safety risk (crashing) then then the pilot should be in charge because he/she is certainly the one who's going to be hauled in front of a judge and has to answer for HIS actions -- so ALL the actions of the craft had either better be Exactly His or the finger is going to point the craft manufacturer. And, I don't care how big DJI is, this isn't complicated or very debatable. "You flew your drone into ____" - "No, I didn't; at the time it flew into ____ I had NO control whatsoever, DJI's software was flying, I was just an observer."
The "You shoulda known" argument is laughable; obviously never been been in civil court lol Ask yourself, why do we have product warning labels for stupid things on everything we own. Warnings on hair dryers that state, "For external body use only" etc... Yup, you shoulda known sticking it there and turning it on was gonna burn ya ... but it didnt SAY so ... I don't see any warning labels on my Phantom that state: "DJI Software may take over control, for good reason OR NOT, at any time and you can't do anything about it." Dumb? Go read some product warning labels and ask yourself, why are those there? Then you'll understand.
Sorry fairly new. Where do I find flight logs. Is that the "garbage files" that are created on my SD card?
I used to fly RC planes. Years ago. No camera though and range was as far as I could see. But once I got so far away I could not tell which way was forward back right or left without a large movement. These new things are far from toys. They can kill and it will not be long with the price factor dropping before they do if not already. I can technically sit in my living room and fly up to 5000 meters away. In reality I am lucky to get past 1500 but even at that unless I am very high I cannot see my drone due to trees, houses etc. The thought of going under a tree and suddenly getting a no signal returning to home scares the hell out of me. I paid Over $3000 for this thing I don't want it to die. Especially if I was forced into something I could have easily stopped.
Rules I have read. No closer than 500 feet to people, houses, roads, animals. max altitude 300 feet. They don't stipulate if by animals they mean only domestic or wild? There are animals everywhere. basically there is no where I could fly by those rules.
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2016
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 8
- Age
- 69
I have to also step up here and have my two cents. I agree with this comment:
"Yes, but what if you just needed that 15 more seconds of power between 1% and 0% to make it just those few more feet to safety -- at least you have the possibility as the pilot to try. DJI is taking that away and saying, Sorry, you are done when I say you are DESPITE the fact that at this moment right now you have a perfectly fine flying and safe aircraft."
Over a State Park historical site in eastern Arizona, I was recording an Indian Kiva. This was during the period when the battery cells issue would sometimes cause an Inspire v1 battery to show 70+% one minute, then suddenly drop to something like 7-3% in seconds. Mine did this over a very sensitive archaeological dig! I had only seconds to respond and to fly it (at full speed, further draining the batteries) to the parking lot I was fling from — some 300 yards from its location. I barely made it down, landing it at 1% battery life!
If I had lost the ability to make that decision, and the quad had just landed itself there and then, this could have caused a local issue among the sites self-procialined stewards (the Zuni) making further aerial photography of this site impossible for pilots who might want to do this later.
WE NEED TOTAL CONTROL over these birds. Leave the NFZ overrides in, in an OPTIONAL mode, please! This goes for elevation and ALL PILOT DECISIONS. We deserve this right and are paying for it every time we purchase your craft. This is one of this issues that comes from the idea of ideals like "freedom" and "democracy": PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
We love DJI multirotors, don't scare us off, please? : )
"Yes, but what if you just needed that 15 more seconds of power between 1% and 0% to make it just those few more feet to safety -- at least you have the possibility as the pilot to try. DJI is taking that away and saying, Sorry, you are done when I say you are DESPITE the fact that at this moment right now you have a perfectly fine flying and safe aircraft."
Over a State Park historical site in eastern Arizona, I was recording an Indian Kiva. This was during the period when the battery cells issue would sometimes cause an Inspire v1 battery to show 70+% one minute, then suddenly drop to something like 7-3% in seconds. Mine did this over a very sensitive archaeological dig! I had only seconds to respond and to fly it (at full speed, further draining the batteries) to the parking lot I was fling from — some 300 yards from its location. I barely made it down, landing it at 1% battery life!
If I had lost the ability to make that decision, and the quad had just landed itself there and then, this could have caused a local issue among the sites self-procialined stewards (the Zuni) making further aerial photography of this site impossible for pilots who might want to do this later.
WE NEED TOTAL CONTROL over these birds. Leave the NFZ overrides in, in an OPTIONAL mode, please! This goes for elevation and ALL PILOT DECISIONS. We deserve this right and are paying for it every time we purchase your craft. This is one of this issues that comes from the idea of ideals like "freedom" and "democracy": PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
We love DJI multirotors, don't scare us off, please? : )
YOU ARE ENTERING A NO FLY ZONE CONTINUE? YES OR NO
YOUR FUEL IS LOW EMERGENCY LANDING SUGGESTED YES OR NO
YOU ARE ABOUT TO HIT AN OBSTACLE (forward sensors) YES OR NO
I was flying one day had prop guards in place. 200 feet up no where near anything my drone stops moving forwards. I could not move forward , or to sides. It was a windy day. I had to back up. An over ride of the forward sensor would have been nice. Yeah I know I could go into setting and turn forward sensor off but I was very very new to the drone than and did not want to open a bunch of windows losing my view.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2015
- Messages
- 1,617
- Reaction score
- 747
- Age
- 71
No, none of that is easy. You're assuming that things on the map are where the map thinks they are. That happens to be untrue. Lots of roads are shifted several hundred feet from reality. For a long time, my house which sits comfortably on a bluff was in the middle of a local bay. Google finally got around to fixing that.....
The other problem is that there is a limit to the computing power available to the UAV and the RC. The GO app pushes a lot of tablets / phones to the max. What you are suggesting is very computationally demanding. The 'is it moving' algorithm alone would take quite a bit of processor time.
Sure, you can do it. Not for $1000 but you can do it. Except of course for the maps. Until Google and its competitors manage to become perfect geographical engines, you may be worse off than you are now.
Similar threads
