nolimitdronez.com or ???

[mdurbanek]

Is "nolimitdronez.com" my only option to cut DJI out of the airspace restriction loop? or the best? or any good at all? I have an FAA authorization for a 200' limit near a busy regional airport (KSBP) with a contract tower. But it's a 240 mile roundtrip and I don't want to get surprised with a DJI lock when I arrive. Thirty-five bucks for nolimitdronez is cheap insurance if it works.

 

[dirkclod]

That is a hacking site and there are more .I see some using them to remove the NFZ's and height restrictins
in a few of our other forums . You can also find You-Tubes on how they do it .
I and just me IMO do not indorse doing any of that . The limits good or bad in some cases are there for a reason .

And let me add just to cover CDP from our guidelines

• 
  16. For everyone's safety, we do not condone the manipulation of the manufacturer's software or firmware (software/firmware hacks), and may, (at our discretion), delete without warning any content that violates or promotes this type of activity.

 

[BigAl07]

Keep in mind that if you have an "incident" and it's found that you intentionally hacked/over rode the manufacturers software the pressure will be on. The FAA will have a field day with you.

 

[mdurbanek]

I was absolutely clear - I have an FAA authorization. There have been quite a few posts on this site regarding DJI interfering with flights that have been approved with either FAA or LAANC authorizations. DJI is NOT in any way a USA authority. In fact, their Geo-fencing is a hack on my business.

The DJI products themselves are great. I appreciate the ability to offer their capability to my customers. But if there is a way to cut them out of the airspace restriction loop, I will do it. I don't want to fly BLOS, above any restricted altitude, or interfere with any manned AC.

So Dirk and Al - exactly whom should I hold responsible for an DJI geo-fencing error which causes me financial harm?

 

[BigAl07]

I was absolutely clear - I have an FAA authorization. There have been quite a few posts on this site regarding DJI interfering with flights that have been approved with either FAA or LAANC authorizations. DJI is NOT in any way a USA authority. In fact, their Geo-fencing is a hack on my business.

The DJI products themselves are great. I appreciate the ability to offer their capability to my customers. But if there is a way to cut them out of the airspace restriction loop, I will do it. I don't want to fly BLOS, above any restricted altitude, or interfere with any manned AC.

So Dirk and Al - exactly whom should I hold responsible for an DJI geo-fencing error which causes me financial harm?

Sometimes we get to job sites and things don't work out. It's part of the cost of doing business. It sucks but it happens. Most of the time you'll want to eliminate a "Single Failure Point" by having an alternative solution in hand for any commercial job you need to do.

If you want to make absolutely SURE then you need to use equipment that isn't locked down to begin with. Either CUSTOM or some manufacturer that offers unlocked systems as an option.

No one has required you to use DJI equipment so I would have the answer to your question about who to hold responsible... that would be the guy in the mirror each day.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

I was absolutely clear - I have an FAA authorization. There have been quite a few posts on this site regarding DJI interfering with flights that have been approved with either FAA or LAANC authorizations. DJI is NOT in any way a USA authority. In fact, their Geo-fencing is a hack on my business.

The DJI products themselves are great. I appreciate the ability to offer their capability to my customers. But if there is a way to cut them out of the airspace restriction loop, I will do it. I don't want to fly BLOS, above any restricted altitude, or interfere with any manned AC.

So Dirk and Al - exactly whom should I hold responsible for an DJI geo-fencing error which causes me financial harm?

I hear you and have thought about those NFZ removals hacks. But my better angels keep warning me about what may happen if things go to crap and a worst scenario erupts? (injury, FAA getting panties in a bunch, insurance carrier refusing coverage claiming my hack caused the incident, etc.).

I've lost a 5-year old P3P and a new P4P this year (my dealer intervened and got me another P4P at no cost). Innovative UAS- they are standup guys. So, even when things are going well, **** happens. I'm too chicken to try a hack. Having too much fun running the business to take a chance.

 

[mdurbanek]

Al, I like you and usually agree with your views, but you're off base here. The company has overstepped its bounds. It really has no right to access my equipment once they take my money. Especially since I follow all of the FAA rules and regs.

There could be another angle here: DJI could possibly say they are trying to protect their market with their own restrictions. But they don't have the ability to coexist with the FAA system in real time. The result will be a continuous FAIL.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Al, I like you and usually agree with your views, but you're off base here. The company has overstepped its bounds. It really has no right to access my equipment once they take my money. Especially since I follow all of the FAA rules and regs.

There could be another angle here: DJI could possibly say they are trying to protect their market with their own restrictions. But they don't have the ability to coexist with the FAA system in real time. The result will be a continuous FAIL.

Michael, I think we all agree we are getting shafted by a Chinese company assuming regulatory control over the use of its products. Doing the hack may end up being dangerous to our business.

Who will be test case for bringing legal action against DJI? It will take a fortune. I think it should be the USDOJ .

 

[Dave Pitman]

Moving beyond what I think we all agree regarding GEO, I'll put my horns on.

My P4P is what some of you who seemingly don't understand the firmware would call "hacked". In fact, it is no more "hacked" than adjusting the amount of breaking in the GO 4 app. I made the change, (it's called a parameter) in the DJI Assistant software before DJI figured out that we could do that.

Many are too fearful to take this step for mostly reasons that don't hold up for me, but everyone has to decide for themselves. I'll leave you with a couple of points to ponder. Although I know for many it's easier just to go with the flow. I do get that.

1. DJI makes it absolutely clear that the operator of their equipment is solely responsible for how it's used.

2. Even if DJI didn't make this clear, the operator would still be solely responsible for it's use. Unless, there was a defect in the hardware of software that DJI negligently knew about but ignored.

3. The firmware, that some hold up as the holy grail not to be messed with, is not certified to any standard. NO ONE, not even DJI, states that it is perfect. If fact many versions have come and gone with serious flaws. But I degrees.

4. Joe Ernster, who is our local insurance expert, has stated that "modification" of the firmware beyond what DJI "wants" has never even been a question in a claim.

Somewhere along the line, folks got it into their head that DJI is some sort of authority of right and wrong. That's simply not true. In fact, because of the "hacking community" it was discovered that DJI was illegally using Open Source software toolkits without abiding by the licensing. For those of you that have been RCing for a long time, I find it incredibly difficult to understand how you got to this point, but whatever. If you have programmed numerous flight controllers over the years, how do you all of a sudden think that changing a parameter in DJI's flight controller is somehow bad or illegal? You own the equipment and you're not rewriting the code, you're just changing a value in the existing code. You're not changing any flight algorithms or anything, lol !

I've seen the same people that would change a value in their digital camera's firmware in order to open up RAW settings balk at changing a value in their drone's firmware to allow them to take off in an area that DJI said they can't. I don't get it.

IF the FAA tells me that DJI is the authority and whatever they say goes, then I will not touch the firmware.

IF my insurance company tells me that DJI is the authority and their parameter settings cannot be changed by the user, then I will not touch the FW.

IF there is a legal precedent set that if the owner of the equipment changes a FW parameter then no matter the cause of an incident they well be held negligent, then I will not touch the FW.

I think it will be a long time with FW far more vetted than DJI's current FW before any of the above comes to pass. But I'll be watching.

Ok, horns put away now!

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Moving beyond what I think we all agree regarding GEO, I'll put my horns on.

My P4P is what some of you who seemingly don't understand the firmware would call "hacked". In fact, it is no more "hacked" than adjusting the amount of breaking in the GO 4 app. I made the change, (it's called a parameter) in the DJI Assistant software before DJI figured out that we could do that.

Many are too fearful to take this step for mostly reasons that don't hold up for me, but everyone has to decide for themselves. I'll leave you with a couple of points to ponder. Although I know for many it's easier just to go with the flow. I do get that.

1. DJI makes it absolutely clear that the operator of their equipment is solely responsible for how it's used.

2. Even if DJI didn't make this clear, the operator would still be solely responsible for it's use. Unless, there was a defect in the hardware of software that DJI negligently knew about but ignored.

3. The firmware, that some hold up as the holy grail not to be messed with, is not certified to any standard. NO ONE, not even DJI, states that it is perfect. If fact many versions have come and gone with serious flaws. But I degrees.

4. Joe Ernster, who is our local insurance expert, has stated that "modification" of the firmware beyond what DJI "wants" has never even been a question in a claim.

Somewhere along the line, folks got it into their head that DJI is some sort of authority of right and wrong. That's simply not true. In fact, because of the "hacking community" it was discovered that DJI was illegally using Open Source software toolkits without abiding by the licensing. For those of you that have been RCing for a long time, I find it incredibly difficult to understand how you got to this point, but whatever. If you have programmed numerous flight controllers over the years, how do you all of a sudden think that changing a parameter in DJI's flight controller is somehow bad or illegal? You own the equipment and you're not rewriting the code, you're just changing a value in the existing code. You're not changing any flight algorithms or anything, lol !

I've seen the same people that would change a value in their digital camera's firmware in order to open up RAW settings balk at changing a value in their drone's firmware to allow them to take off in an area that DJI said they can't. I don't get it.

IF the FAA tells me that DJI is the authority and whatever they say goes, then I will not touch the firmware.

IF my insurance company tells me that DJI is the authority and their parameter settings cannot be changed by the user, then I will not touch the FW.

IF there is a legal precedent set that if the owner of the equipment changes a FW parameter then no matter the cause of an incident they well be held negligent, then I will not touch the FW.

I think it will be a long time with FW far more vetted than DJI's current FW before any of the about comes to pass. But I'll be watching.

Ok, horns put away now!

Your premise is invalid. Changing a parameter allowed by the manufacturer as defined by said manufacturer in their documentation is not a "hack" and easily proven in any court case.

No one on this forum can anticipate what the feds nor your insurance will deemed to be a hack, thus making you responsible. All due respect, Joe is just one insurance person. I am sure he would agree he is no expert in how each aviation insurance carrier would react to any software hack. I flew real airplanes. Want to guess what would happen to me if I decided to "fix" my artificial horizon (not being a certified avionics/instrument tech) and said fix caused a crash? How fast u think my ABC Aviation insurance man will run away from me???
Actually, I was an avionics tech in the military-but I digress).

If experience is any guide we all know how insurance carriers will search for ways to avoid responsibility. They are a business.

Changing a parameter allowed by the manufacturer is not a "hack" as defined by said manufacturer. No one on this forum can anticipate what the feds nor your insurance will deemed to be a hack, thus making you responsible.

It is one thing for a dumb hobbyist to alter a drone's software and cause a mishap, they can claim ignorance and have no FAA certificate to lose. Professionals will have a higher bar to jump to claim: Duh, I didn't know.

Personally, it's your business, hack away. I was responding to Michael.

 

[Dave Pitman]

No one on this forum can anticipate what the feds nor your insurance will deemed to be a hack, thus making you responsible

As retired law enforcement, I'm sure you will agree that folks in criminal litigation are not allowed to make things up as they go. My point is, it has to be breaking some law or regulation that currently exists before you can be found guilty of it. Is that not true? So first, there would have to be a law or regulation in place. I think I said that above.

That leaves civil law. Sure, I suppose some jury somewhere could say that because you turned off dji's NFZ, then you are at fault when some old lady drove her car into a storefront while gawking at your drone out in the field. I guess crazier things have happened.

Joe E would probably be the first to say that everyone is on their own on this at this point. But, he has dealt with lots of claims so far and the underwriter hasn't tried to make a loop-hole out of this issue was my point.

You guys keep saying "don't do it because you might be doing something wrong or that you can get in trouble for it". I'm saying that hypothetical s don't cut it. There are rules and laws and there is water cooler talk and we need to separate the 2. Show me a rule or regulation that prohibits changing a parameter in the firmware and I'll jump on your bandwagon.

If I told you to not fly on Sundays because you might get in trouble you'd call that nonsense. There is just as many rules against flying on Sunday as there is against changing that parameter. Rule and Regs first, then compliance.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

As retired law enforcement, I'm sure you will agree that folks in criminal litigation are not allowed to make things up as they go. My point is, it has to be breaking some law or regulation that currently exists before you can be found guilty of it. Is that not true?

That leaves civil law. Sure, I suppose some jury somewhere could say that because you turned off dji's NFZ, then you are at fault when some old lady drove ther car into a storefront while gawking at your drone out in the field. I guess crazier things have happened.

some old lady drove their car into a storefront while gawking at your drone out in the field.

I was nowhere near criminal law, Dave. Merely speculating on the FAA knee-jerk response to a mishap with injuries and the insurance carrier's possible response to finding the PIC "hacked" the bird. IMHO, I think both will hang the PIC to dry. Just my opinion, not a place I want to be. Life is tough enough.

 

[Dave Pitman]

Life is tough enough.

I agree with that whole heartedly Luis. I am super conservative in my judgement (I think), but don't have any worry whatsoever in the knowledge that I disabled DJI GEO. We can both sleep well with our respective decisions!

 

[TreeLineView]

Whats the difference between DJI and Microsoft. We crack open the box, feverishly scroll through the 10,000 word"Terms of Agreement" to reach the Accept button and then live/die by the never ending updates.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Whats the difference between DJI and Microsoft. We crack open the box, feverishly scroll through the 10,000 word"Terms of Agreement" to reach the Accept button and then live/die by the never ending updates.

When I fired up my PC this AM it didn't flash a message "sorry you can't use me until noon Thursday. If you want to use me now you must either email Microsoft to unlock me or move me two blocks over."

Big difference.

 

[Tennessee Drone Services]

I had this exact problem in Green Bay Wisconsin. I flew up with my equipment, FAA approval, DJI's unlock and arrived at Schneiders headquarters only to be met with a red label that I can't take off.

Now I always fly with a Parrot Anafi as my backup drone. Fool me once, shame on me...

 

[mdurbanek]

Well, I see that similar threads and opinions are all over this and other fora. The morons at Gatwick are not going to improve the situation long-term.

So here's another question: is there a way to remotely determine if a DJI geofence exists in a specific location? I'm a professional, I plan my work in advance. If I need a fence to be unlocked, I'm happy to do the advancd communication with DJI.

 

[Weaponized]

Well, I see that similar threads and opinions are all over this and other fora. The morons at Gatwick are not going to improve the situation long-term.

So here's another question: is there a way to remotely determine if a DJI geofence exists in a specific location? I'm a professional, I plan my work in advance. If I need a fence to be unlocked, I'm happy to do the advancd communication with DJI.

DJI flysafe Geo zone map in your go4 app if that's what you're using. I think its on their website too

 

[aerialimagery]

This is a very frustrating situation. I have tried to unlock my DJI with no success and another time, I did and can't remember how I did it. I can understand their concern but I wish they would limit it to a pop-up window with a warning and no more than that. It would be nice if they would unlock everything for those with 107 licenses.

I don't see why anyone would have any issues with "hacking" their software. If it invalidates whatever guarantees they offer, so be it. That's on the owner and that's his right. It's not the business of the FAA, either. Why should they care anyway? There are no FAA regulations regarding obedience to DJI.

 

[Weaponized]

This is a very frustrating situation. I have tried to unlock my DJI with no success and another time, I did and can't remember how I did it. I can understand their concern but I wish they would limit it to a pop-up window with a warning and no more than that. It would be nice if they would unlock everything for those with 107 licenses.

I don't see why anyone would have any issues with "hacking" their software. If it invalidates whatever guarantees they offer, so be it. That's on the owner and that's his right. It's not the business of the FAA, either. Why should they care anyway? There are no FAA regulations regarding obedience to DJI.

If you have the unlock code showing up in your app it will look like this when you look at your profile. This tells you only what areas are approved/loaded. Then when your app is connected to the aircraft in the main aircraft settings menu you can activate the area you want for the flight. My craft isn't connected right so the final menu item for flight restrictions isn't accessible.