Welcome, Commercial Drone Pilots!
Join our growing community today!
Sign up

Calif. tourist fined $20K for out-of-control drone that landed at airport in Las Vegas flight in 2018

The root problem is people in general. Although a great many voice their displeasure with DJI’s nanny ware they run out and buy one anyway.

The only thing that will cause DJI to discontinue use of geo zones is people no longer buying their hardware. If people complain but buy anyway they have no reason to make a change as they are still getting the money. You are a prime example, you complain yet own a Mavic, a platform released long after Geo was initiated. Makes no sense to complain and discuss product liability actions for software against a product you were fully cognizant of prior to purchase. That’s like suing Tesla for getting in a wreck while you were taking a nap driving on autopilot.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PhantomFandom
Easy solution is to eliminate geofencing, isn't all that difficult to do. If one chooses to do that, then they better make sure they are flying legal, and that also isn't too difficult.
It eliminates a lot of frustration and wasted time. What I don't know, is disabling geofencing illegal? I haven't seen anything from the FAA that indicates it is illegal.
 
What I don't know, is disabling geofencing illegal? I haven't seen

Of course you do. If you've forgotten, a quick review of 107 will tune you up.

It's actually interesting that the FAA has not required manufactures to allow certificated operators to completely opt-out since it is possible for GEO to detrimentally interfere with an an operation in flight. They (the FAA) is probably happy with the general function of manufactures' geofencing. But it is in conflict with the long-standing PIC doctrine. Could you imagine a manned autopilot system that could not be deactivated at will by a flight crew?
 
As the regs are currently written, disabling GEO fencing is not even addressed. I do foresee a time in the future when this industry is a lot more mature and stable, when that will not be the case. But I don't see the FAA helping to enforce anything the China has opted to install in the aircraft.

Once there are standards and certifications for sUAS we might be having a totally different conversation here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: R.Perry
As the regs are currently written, disabling GEO fencing is not even addressed. I do foresee a time in the future when this industry is a lot more mature and stable, when that will not be the case. But I don't see the FAA helping to enforce anything the China has opted to install in the aircraft.

After spending the last month or so in manual hell, I did happen across something that really hit home. I found an obscure line in one of the FAA manuals that said in effect that regulations are created for people who are unable to regulate themselves. After putting a lot of thought on that statement, it seems that the FAA has given us the ability to join the club as willing participants and they actually haven't overburdened us with rules and regulations. We have the latitude to enjoy the privileges of being a pilot in the NAS and there really are not a lot of rules holding us back; until the idiots like the one mentioned in this thread make the FAA regulate us heavier.

It's not that difficult to understand. It is our responsibility to get it right each and every time we take to the skies. Not just commercially. Everyone. I'm not a rocket scientist and even I get that.
 
regulations are created for people who are unable to regulate themselves.

Regulations serve to inform us on how we can share the NAS safely. The only aspect of the regulations that help the undisciplined regulate themselves are the ones that warn them of the penalties for not following the other regulations.

Everyone needs the regulations (instructions) so that we're all on the same page as far as how the NAS is to be used. It takes disciple to read and incorporate those regulations. So the regulations are for the folks that will self-regulated based on the regulations and those that are unwilling or unable to self-regulate themselves. You then have the class of the ignorant that don't know the regulations exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
Regulations serve to inform us on how we can share the NAS safely. The only aspect of the regulations that help the undisciplined regulate themselves are the ones that warn them of the penalties for not following the other regulations.

Everyone needs the regulations (instructions) so that we're all on the same page as far as how the NAS is to be used. It takes disciple to read and incorporate those regulations. So the regulations are for the folks that will self-regulated based on the regulations and those that are unwilling or unable to self-regulate themselves. You then have the class of the ignorant that don't know the regulations exist.
giphy (18).gif
 
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 !!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mavic Mac
Just a note. I've never been asked for these credentials when driving off with a purchased vehicle. A rental usually asks for a license. I can only speak for where I live though.

Up until this year I was in the same boat. But when I purchased my new car they asked for my drivers license, noted the #, and made a photo copy of it. I suspect it was more for Fraud Protection rather than making sure I was a licensed driver but none-the-less I did have to show them my state DL.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
4,277
Messages
37,605
Members
5,969
Latest member
KC5JIM