Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DJI stops blocking drones flying over airports, wildfires, & the White House

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–7 of 7 posts

Re: DJI stops blocking drones flying over airports, wildfires, & the White House

#3

Post by ben7799 »

I'm fairly excited about this.

I took the FAA training courses and only fly a I also had extremely bad luck with going through the unlock process in a lot of areas where DJI required an unlock but the FAA did not. If the unlock process fails you are not flying even in an area where the FAA is fine with you flying.

In my case there are a lot of use cases I like that would have me flying at no higher than 50-75 feet and I create basically no risk to aviation but right now I'm completely locked out. E.x flying at 25 feet to take a picture of a car or someone on a skateboard ramp or riding a mountain bike.

I've looked at the US manufactured alternatives.. they have none of the DJI restrictions.. but they accomplish making sure users are responsible by charging 10x more for the drone and not even offering small drones. There is no way I'm buying a $5,000-10,000 drone for hobby use.

Re: DJI stops blocking drones flying over airports, wildfires, & the White House

#4

Post by mrandish »

ben7799 wrote: post #3

I'm fairly excited about this. I took the FAA training courses and only fly a I also had extremely bad luck with going through the unlock process in a lot of areas where DJI required an unlock but the FAA did not. If the unlock process fails you are not flying even in an area where the FAA is fine with you flying. In my case there are a lot of use cases I like that would have me flying at no higher than 50-75 feet an…

I agree, this is a good thing. The previous restrictions were excessive when they worked and unpredictable when they didn't work. It was buggy and error prone. Having a clear advisory from the app when flying in or near a restricted area is sufficient and appropriate. Changing the restriction to a warning will probably reduce the number of newbie pilots wandering into off-limits areas. Previously, a newbie would just assume "It won't let me do anything I shouldn't" but the system was far from perfect. Now, even newbie pilots will know "I need to stay aware of where I'm flying. The system will try to help me but I'm responsible." This is the correct message and encourages the right attitude, likely resulting in an overall safer airspace for everyone.

The article complains that change relies on people complying with the law (and common sense) voluntarily as well as deterrence from the risk of being caught by law enforcement and/or having your drone downed electronically. But that's how nearly all laws work in modern democracies. Bad actors could easily circumvent the DJI restrictions anyway - or just fly an easy-to-assemble DIY drone kit with no restrictions or warnings.

DJI's restrictions were only ever going to help 'keep honest people honest' (and newbies from making a mistake). The article pretending this is somehow like surrendering to anarchy is just completely mischaracterizing the situation. Due to their flight profiles and design, DJI products are good for newbie Costco buyers. Those same traits tend to make DJI drones a poor fit for anyone who wants to break the rules (and not because of the circumventable "restrictions").

Re: DJI stops blocking drones flying over airports, wildfires, & the White House

#5

Post by olliej »

Um, literally days after one drone flying idiot took out an actual fire fighting plane?

"Cool"

Are we going to require drone pilots to have insurance that covers all potential damage caused by their actions? if not this seems like another case of letting shitty people be shitty without consequences.

Re: DJI stops blocking drones flying over airports, wildfires, & the White House

#6

Post by ricardobeat »

olliej wrote: post #5

Um, literally days after one drone flying idiot took out an actual fire fighting plane? "Cool" Are we going to require drone pilots to have insurance that covers all potential damage caused by their actions? if not this seems like another case of letting shitty people be shitty without consequences.

If that accident happened with no-fly zone enforcement in effect, this changes nothing, because it was not in a no-fly zone. It also doesn’t have any impact at all on what consequences will come for people breaking the law.

I think relying on a private company to map out and enforce flying rules was always a bad idea. Does your car allow you to drive into the airport, or does it disable itself?

Post reply on HN