I think there are many good points and counterpoints here. I'll add my $0.02
We certainly don't know the whole story and what this guy's intent was. However if we do look at all of what we do know about him, his equipment, and his past flights, a pretty clear picture starts to emerge for me. That picture points me to believe that he had no regard for regulations and had very little understanding of how his drone works. I make the following "assumptions" based on having seen a partial sketchy flight log of the flight, his own page showing past flights, the entire video of this flight, and a picture of him with his controller.
- He took off from a structure that most likely caused magnetic interference. STRIKE 1.
He likely took off before having a good GPS lock and recorded home point. STRIKE 2.
He likely took off most likely with modified firmware and/or old firmware. STRIKE 3.
This shows me that he knew very little about the proper and safe operation of his P3P.
- He used a modded controller with long range antenna boosters. This shows me he was intent on flying beyond VLOS regularly.
- He posted a video of flying BVLOS at night!
- He totally ignored the letters from the FAA. So he either is totally clueless or knew he had no defense and thought the issue might go away.
As to the question of liability, can a good lawyer sue DJI and say that they should take at least some of the responsibility? Of course in this litigious country they can, but that doesn't mean they should. First we need to see if the geo-fencing simply failed or if the PIC disabled it. If it was purposely disabled then there is no way DJI should be liable. If the geo-fencing should have worked but didn't then you could almost see the point that DJI "could" hold some responsibility but that doesn't fly with me. The PIC is ALWAYS responsible for knowing the airspace around and above them. If this guy had checked airspace, he would have quickly recognized the problem of flying there. Third option is that geo-fencing was enabled, the pilot did not check airspace and the P3P still flew because it never had a GPS fix. This is still the fault of the PIC, since he should have checked airspace in advance and checked his equipment before taking off.
Then comes the whole argument about "ignorance of the law". I can see both sides here. Ignorance of the law does not excuse someone for doing something stupid, dangerous, reckless, and irresponsible. However, there has to be some better way to make the casual drone operator aware of what the regulations are. As it stands, there is very little (if any) documentation provided to a new drone owner on what they can and cannot do. You can buy a car without having a license but you can't drive it off the lot without a license (and insurance). I would fully support a license check prior to being able to purchase a drone. It doesn't need to be Part 107, but the soon to be FAA recreational exam should provide enough information so that a recreational license proves the pilot at least knows the basic regulations. That license should also clearly indicate that the PIC is always expected to be in control and know the regulations.
Finally to all of those that constantly complain about geo-fencing being forced on them by DJI and preventing them from doing what they need to do. First of all, if it bothers you that much then just don't buy DJI. I have never had an issue with getting authorization from LAANC and then unlocking the area for a flight in controlled airspace. However, I would fully support an available option for licensed Part 107 pilots to permanently unlocking all geo-fencing on their drone after signing an agreement saying they understand that the drone is now completely under their control.
Have a great Thanksgiving everyone !!
