Geofencing - sneaking under the wire

[Porc]

Just looked at the opt-out system. Much as I love conspiracies (and quietly agree with aka1ceman on most things) it's going to be hard to argue that DJI are restricting users any more. I wonder how long it'll last or whether reports of self-authorisation get sent on anywhere (the FAA?)
Now THERE'S a new conspiracy to think about.

My concern about self authorization is that the web site to do so says I am agreeing that they gave me permission to fly there. So, if I just use my head and see I am about to fly in a nice park with green lawn 4 miles from an airport, with no chance of a plane ever being 400 feet up from that location, and then decide to self authorize and fly... Then what? I have just lied about the authorization permission. And there is a computer record of the lie. This worries me.
...

Sent via Tapatalk on my Android phone. Good news; Tapatalk sucks less than it used to.

 

[Dirty Bird]

In the old Vision+ version of the DJI app they had began implementation of geofencing around major airports. At my house (~2.5 miles from BWI) I am alerted that I am restricted to 160' altitude. There is an on-screen pop-up & the tail lights flash 5x rapid red.

My Advanced is running 1.3. There is no restriction at my house & I can fly unimpeded. I am fine with legitimate restrictions around major airports. I see no reason to require a 3-day pass to fly in an altitude restriction zone. I am also concerned with whole cities, towns subdivisions, & even individuals declaring the airspace above as no-fly zones.

 

[MrMcfly]

On my DJI GO App, the red circles have appeared around airports... These are the diameter of the longest runway, and I assume these are 'no fly' zones.
The Air Force Base a few miles away has an active runway, but no circle... Seems that DJI isn't looking very far into this geo-fencing.
I've also flew within 2 miles of a major airport (yes, I called) and never got the authorization message on the GO app. Not characteristic
of what I've been hearing. I've only gotten an authorization message once, and it was for setting the max altitude over the default 400',
to 550 ft. Yes I authorized it, and flew to 475' on this one flight (geographical reasons) but I was never visited by Black helicopters,
or men in suits and sunglasses, so it's not reported per say, but IF an investigation occurs, I guess there's a record of you flying outside
safety regulations... even then, you might not be the cause of the issue.. they'd have to prove that.

At this point and time I think these messages are put out with the sole purpose of notifying the 'oblivious pilot' that they are doing something
potentially dangerous, and maybe, just maybe, they'll realize it, and make a safer choice. If these safety warnings go unheeded, then more
geo-fencing will probably be added as DJI gets more information on just which regulations are being broken. Then again, I could be wrong....

 

[The Suburban Hippie]

After some thought, I think this is a much better solution than national registry. I think congress could pass a law that by 2017 all drones have this. This way you can't fly in a red zone, and if you bypass a yellow, there is a clear record of who did it.

I just hope there will be a system in place to keep people from being overzealous!

 

[John Decker]

In New Zealand we have what is called a shielded operation that allows you to fly within certain otherwise restricted areas. It is basically flying at the height of, or below the tallest object within 100 metres. The idea is that if a plane is at that height it's history anyway. Do you not have anything like that in the States?

 

[Lightfoot]

This will be another reason for geofencing to be forced upon us. Flight is delayed at Heathrow airport after drone flies over a runway

 

[MrMcfly]

This will be another reason for geofencing to be forced upon us. Flight is delayed at Heathrow airport after drone flies over a runway

Just like the media to criminalize an object rather than the person operating it. The UAV is blamed, but is not at fault... the operator is, and
there isn't even a mention than someone guided the UAV into controlled airspace. This type of subjective reporting automatically puts ALL
UAVs in the spotlight, instead of the one idiot that misused it. It's this type of journalism that will make mandatory geo-fencing easier to implement.

 

[CaptPhantom]

Those YELLOW AUTHORISATION zones look very nasty big brother. Those big overlapping circles yellow out entire towns, cities, states and even countries!

I live next to 2 NFZs and the local laws in my country is all I care about. If I was to fly overseas, for example on a holiday, I would research and pay attention to the laws in that jurisdiction.

I don't like the idea of manufacturer crippling and disabling my machine until I receive temporary authorisation which includes a process of submitting personal details including credit card info to unlock my drone.

What other drone manufacturer does this?

So my understanding that anyone that who is already on the new system, i.e. firmware 1.6 "the cold battery update fix" cannot go back

Once you are at 1.5, your drone is cooked at that firmware revision and cannot be downgraded.

 

[0DRK3RT]

It's funny how folks in one thread scold others for flying past LOS and/or above 400ft. Yet those same people are bitching and moaning that they can't fly close to an airport, which is as unsafe as it gets.

Why don't you just call the airport control tower and tell them you'll be flying a UAS at 350ft. from
X:XX pm to X:XX pm? Problem solved.

 

[John Decker]

It's funny how folks in one thread scold others for flying past LOS and/or above 400ft. Yet those same people are bitching and moaning that they can't fly close to an airport, which is as unsafe as it gets.

Why don't you just call the airport control tower and tell them you'll be flying a UAS at 350ft. from
X:XX pm to X:XX pm? Problem solved.

Good point about the double standards, but not about "just" calling the control tower. Here (NZ) is have to fill out a bunch of forms and wait for authorisation. Or I could fly quite legally as long as it was a shielded operation, where I essentially fly in the shadow of taller objects. So DJI are preventing me from flying legally..

 

[0DRK3RT]

Good point about the double standards, but not about "just" calling the control tower. Here (NZ) is have to fill out a bunch of forms and wait for authorisation. Or I could fly quite legally as long as it was a shielded operation, where I essentially fly in the shadow of taller objects. So DJI are preventing me from flying legally..

Man, I would do pretty much anything to fly a P3 in your country! Beautiful place! That's too bad about the restrictions there.

 

[John Decker]

Man, I would do pretty much anything to fly a P3 in your country! Beautiful place! That's too bad about the restrictions there.

I've got a few friends in the police and I've spoken to some others in my dealings with search and rescue and they pretty much all say that as long as you're not making a nuisance of yourself they won't give you a hard time. They've got bigger fish to fry.
Cause an accident and you'll be in the proverbial, of course, so you have to be reasonably sensible. And away from the NFZs and LFZs you don't have to worry about shielded operations. It's pretty lax really. But drop it in the bush and you'll never find it again without a tracker.

 

[sifu128]

Dont upgrade to firmware 1.7 or the software and you will be fine.