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

DJI Mavic Mini

dji.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 187 posts

Re: DJI Mavic Mini

#51

Post by bilbo0s »

dogma1138 wrote: post #48
bsamuels wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soon the FAA is going to require a knowledge test for recreational flyers to fly UAS heavier than 250g. The part 107 commercial UAS exam that already exists requires a lot of studying and costs $150 to take, and this falls on the easy end of your typical FAA exam. DJI is hedging that the recreational flyer test is going to be a massive barrier for recreational pilots, which is why they're pushing a <250g UAS into the…

Just to make a note it seems that this one has two types of batteries one that weights 50g and one that weights 100g. If you use the heavy battery you go over 249g I’m also not sure if their flight stats were measured with the heavy one or the light one I’ll bet that they are with the 100g battery. This means that under most conditions you’ll likely have 8-10min of flight time with the light battery since the adverti…

Also, I imagine flight characteristics will change dramatically with a 100g battery. Heavier payload, same motors, doesn't bode well. May as well get a real drone rather than use the 100g battery.

But for toy drones, the 50g battery is fine. Especially since that pack lets you carry 3 of them. Plus I'm sure the next generation will be lighter still with still greater flight time. And the generation after that. Etc.

Future seems pretty bright for these "family pictures" type drones. But they aren't competitive with the big boys for certain use cases right now.

Re: DJI Mavic Mini

#53

Post by dougmwne »

blhack wrote: post #23

Wow, very cool! As others have pointed out, being under the weight limit set by the FAA is basically THE selling point. Ethical question: are DJI the good guys here working within the rules set out of the FAA, or are they running afoul of the spirit but staying within the letter?

I mean the idea of the weight limit is that at some weight the drone just does not pose as much of a public safety issue. I don't wee why the regulators should change the weight limit unless there's evidence that 249g is still too much of a risk. Incentivizing companies to hit a weight limit is a good thing. If the drone is the size of a songbird and the loudness of a bumblebee, I'm not sure I care if they're unregulated.

Re: DJI Mavic Mini

#54

Post by colechristensen »

blhack wrote: post #23

Wow, very cool! As others have pointed out, being under the weight limit set by the FAA is basically THE selling point. Ethical question: are DJI the good guys here working within the rules set out of the FAA, or are they running afoul of the spirit but staying within the letter?

The FAA is free to change the rules based on what happens in the real world, if the FAA is doing their job well they will have considered the implications of someone creating something just on the other side of the limit as is common with regulations like that. If the limit is set correctly, there will be a margin of safety between where the limit is and the point where risks being mitigated matter.

So no, I don't think DJI are being "bad guys" by kissing up to the limit because the rules were made by people who do think things through very thoroughly.

Re: DJI Mavic Mini

#55

Post by pedalpete »

Does anybody else fear the annoying future where every tourist attraction, trail, ski run, etc are filled with the buzz of everyone with their personal drones?

Re: DJI Mavic Mini

#56

Post by atourgates »

blhack wrote: post #23

Wow, very cool! As others have pointed out, being under the weight limit set by the FAA is basically THE selling point. Ethical question: are DJI the good guys here working within the rules set out of the FAA, or are they running afoul of the spirit but staying within the letter?

I assume the "spirit" of the law is safety. If the FAA has determined that 250g is where the risk of a person, or plane, or something else being hit by a drone is diminished so as to not require the same regulations as drones over that weight, I'd say that keeping drones under that weight limit to avoid those regulations (and their associated safety issues) is well within the "spirit" of the law.

Re: DJI Mavic Mini

#57

Post by folli »

I feel like an old man, when I say this (and maybe I am), but I'm starting to feel increasingly annoyed by drones in public. You hear the whirring of drones on a nice day by the lake, and sometimes even on some more popular mountain peaks here in Switzerland. For me it's almost as annoying as a mosquito in your bedroom.

Re: DJI Mavic Mini

#58

Post by cookiecaper »

post_break wrote: post #34
blhack wrote: post #23

Wow, very cool! As others have pointed out, being under the weight limit set by the FAA is basically THE selling point. Ethical question: are DJI the good guys here working within the rules set out of the FAA, or are they running afoul of the spirit but staying within the letter?

This is how all laws work though. Rifle minimum barrel is 16" so they make 16" barrels. Wifi can only put out X watts max, they put out the maximum by law. There are no ethics in following a laws minimum or maximum.

It's a great reason to exercise caution when setting up rules and definitions. Whatever distinction gets established, however arbitrary, casts a tint on everything else on either side of it, for better or worse.

This is true even in things as routine daily chit-chat and conversation. Think about how often tacitly express your opinion through the way you frame a discussion and how often those environmental cues bias other parties to respond in particular ways. Then, consider how often marketers, salespeople, and other manipulators intentionally frame interactions to provoke a specific biased response.

The light touch and the small nudge are grossly undervalued.

Re: DJI Mavic Mini

#59

Post by deckar01 »

dougmwne wrote: post #53
blhack wrote: post #23

Wow, very cool! As others have pointed out, being under the weight limit set by the FAA is basically THE selling point. Ethical question: are DJI the good guys here working within the rules set out of the FAA, or are they running afoul of the spirit but staying within the letter?

I mean the idea of the weight limit is that at some weight the drone just does not pose as much of a public safety issue. I don't wee why the regulators should change the weight limit unless there's evidence that 249g is still too much of a risk. Incentivizing companies to hit a weight limit is a good thing. If the drone is the size of a songbird and the loudness of a bumblebee, I'm not sure I care if they're unregul…

They removed the forward facing obstacle avoidance system. It might not hurt as bad when it drops on your head, but it seems a lot more likely to fly into your face with the props still spinning.

Re: DJI Mavic Mini

#60

Post by dewey »

missosoup wrote: post #47
dewey wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like a pretty reasonable default to prevent people from flying in no-fly zones or impose height limits next to airports I think. As that’s security related and not some artificial limitation so they can up sell something else I don’t see anything wrong with that.

The way the altitude limit is imposed is idiotic. It doesn't factor terrain height, so flying around mountains is impossible. I've been flying various multicopters for a decade and the mavic pro was the last DJI product I'll ever purchase. Every software update for DJI products restricts their functionality to a subset of what they shipped with. This has been going on for years. People buy dedicated phones/tablets fo…

> It doesn't factor terrain height, so flying around mountains is impossible.

What do you mean by that? I've been flying around the Austrian alps without any problems but when I'm at home I can't go higher than xxx meters above my town because it's within the flight path of a local airport. Which seems to be a reasonable approach?

Post reply on HN