nolimitdronez.com or ???

[Weaponized]

Here what it looks like once connected in the order the menus appear. The 1st thing you have to do when they show up under your profile is upload them to the aircraft and in one of these images you can see the button at the top that says aircraft or app. Once Uploaded You could turn whatever zone on and off. Except for the list under your profile all of this stuff is accessible when connected to the aircraft through the main settings menu

 

[BigAl07]

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.

Because it's about SAFETY! We have the most congested yet safest airspace in the world. The FAA is very strict on aircraft following MANUFACTURERS guidelines/instructions/manuals etc. In what way is hacking the manufacturers software not going against those things?

Odds are the FAA won't even know you've hacked the software but IF there is an incident then the book is going to be thrown at you and odds are your insurance company is not going to back you as well. That's a LOT of liability to take on your own shoulders as a commercial professional business.

 

[Dave Pitman]

but IF there is an incident then the book is going to be thrown at you and odds are your insurance company is not going to back you as well. That's a LOT of liability to take on your own shoulders

We can tell our kids "because I said so". That won't fly (pun intended) in this case. Please share a data point that supports your opinion on this point. With respect, I would be very interested in looking at it.

It's fine to say you think it could lead to trouble but very different from it WILL lead to trouble absent data.

 

[BigAl07]

We can tell our kids "because I said so". That won't fly (pun intended) in this case. Please share a data point that supports your opinion on this point. With respect, I would be very interested in looking at it.

It's fine to say you think it could lead to trouble but very different from it WILL lead to trouble absent data.

Dave it’s just my opinion bud. No data points to demonstrate my hypothesis.

 

[Dave Pitman]

Dave it’s just my opinion bud. No data points to demonstrate my hypothesis.

Fair enough. It's an important distinction. There very well may be something similar in manned aviation somewhere but I haven't seen it.

For example, it's in the regs that you must have up to date data base files for you certified GPS unit for it to count as an IFR instrument. But no problem using it for VFR.

My point is, once again, you have to break some reg or rule before you can be guilty of doing "something."

I am far more concerned about safety when I strap extra gear to the airframe, for example, than changing the parameter to look up dji's NFZ database. One effects flight characteristics and the other does not.

 

[BigAl07]

Fair enough. It's an important distinction. There very well may be something similar in manned aviation somewhere but I haven't seen it.

For example, it's in the regs that you must have up to date data base files for you certified GPS unit for it to count as an IFR instrument. But no problem using it for VFR.

My point is, once again, you have to break some reg or rule before you can be guilty of doing "something."

I am far more concerned about safety when I strap extra gear to the airframe, for example, than changing the parameter to look up dji's NFZ database. One effects flight characteristics and the other does not.

In a perfect would but a modified operating system “could” open the operator up to scrutiny and or liability simply by the virtue of it not being OEM any longer.

 

[Dave Pitman]

In a perfect would but a modified operating system “could” open the operator up to scrutiny and or liability simply by the virtue of it not being OEM any longer.

So you are probably also in the camp that believe if you do not update to the lastest OEM firmware, for whatever reason, you are using an unsupported OS?

 

[BigAl07]

So you are probably also in the camp that believe if you do not update to the lastest OEM firmware, for whatever reason, you are using an unsupported OS?

No I would have stayed that if that were my thought process.

I do believe if you hack the OS/FW you have opened Pandora’s box. Will the FAA ever know? Only if there is an incident and they start an investigation. Until it actually happens it’s only speculation at best but we all know how today’s society is so litigious crazy and insurance companies are looking for any excuse to not pay out. What a better opportunity than to have an incident with a sUAS with hacked software ?

That’s merely my opinion and nothing more.

 

[Dave Pitman]

No I would have stayed that if that were my thought process.

Interesting. Guess not following the wishes of the manufacturer is okay sometimes.

I think you'll be fine as there is nothing on the books that say you must. [emoji6]

Happy Holidays, Al and all you guys !

 

[Pilot143]

the FAA has a history of telling us what we are allowed to do. If it is not spelled out exactly as allowed, it is probably prohibited.

Keep in mind, we are flying manufacturer "certified" and registered aircraft. Any and all modifications that are not approved by the manufacturer has a very good chance of not being tolerated.

One day they may spell out specific mechanic certification measures to us

 

[Dave Pitman]

the FAA has a history of telling us what we are allowed to do. If it is not spelled out exactly as allowed, it is probably prohibited.

Keep in mind, we are flying manufacturer "certified" and registered aircraft. Any and all modifications that are not approved by the manufacturer has a very good chance of not being tolerated.

One day they may spell out specific mechanic certification measures to us

You may want to do a little bit more research. Or perhaps your uas came with an airworthiness certificate. I can tell you that none of mine did.

 

[SanCap]

the FAA has a history of telling us what we are allowed to do. If it is not spelled out exactly as allowed, it is probably prohibited.

Keep in mind, we are flying manufacturer "certified" and registered aircraft. Any and all modifications that are not approved by the manufacturer has a very good chance of not being tolerated.

One day they may spell out specific mechanic certification measures to us

There is nothing "Certified" about a DJI Drone at this time. Your assumption about modifications is unfounded.

 

[SanCap]

the FAA has a history of telling us what we are allowed to do. If it is not spelled out exactly as allowed, it is probably prohibited.

Keep in mind, we are flying manufacturer "certified" and registered aircraft. Any and all modifications that are not approved by the manufacturer has a very good chance of not being tolerated.

One day they may spell out specific mechanic certification measures to us

And when they do I will already have 35 years plus experience doing that between manned aircraft and sUAS!

 

[Pilot143]

Dave, your right, I shouldn't have said certified. DJI is producing an EU Declaration of Conformity and has been for over a year (based on sign dates).

UAV/Drones etc are in a very grey area right now the FAA and the world are dealing with very cautiously. I have been flying full-scale jets and other aircraft, dealing with the FAA for over 20 years. Unknown and untested modifications of any type are not taken lightly. When safety protocols are intentionally bypassed, they will come down severely on a commercial operator that should have known better. When something goes wrong, they will look at every angle and try to blame the pilot, even for software or hardware malfunctions.

Again, the FAA tells us what we are ALLOWED to do. We are allowed to fly between sunrise and sunset, there is a waiver that allows us to fly at night. We must maintain VLOS, there is a waiver that allows us not to. For my Part 135 company, we have a full list of SOPs and OpSpecs that tell us what we are ALLOWED to do. The FAA does this for a reason. If you can't find where you are ALLOWED to do something, you can't do it. Unfortunately, all CFR 14 regs, Part 135 and 107 included, are written for lawyers by lawyers.

Maybe, as of now, we can get away with such things... Maybe? It is not written where it says we can. Currently, I think everyone is obsessed with tracking and disabling runaway aircraft. But allowing software modifications would lead to transponder 'clones' and other issues in the future.

Go watch the movie 'Miracle on the Hudson.' I normally don't recommend movies, nevermind aviation based, but they did nothing wrong while making all the correct not to mention difficult decisions. And the FAA wanted nothing more than to make examples of them. It is a scary world honestly. All the experience in the world and you will be treated as a student pilot in the end.

 

[Dave Pitman]

Hi @Pilot143, welcome to the forum.

I am fairly well versed on Part 107. Been a PP since 1997 as well.

At this point, it is up to the RP to determine if any particular suav is "airworthy". DJI does not determine if one of our craft is airworthy. Someday, that will change most likely but we are a long ways from there.

How then do we determine if one of out craft are airworthy? Speaking for myself, I use a preflight inspection of items and then I am constantly evaluating the craft for expected performance. I have been flying a P4P, for example, for over a year with older firmware and the NFZ database turned off. It has performed flawlessly in all this time. I have determined that the P4P is airworthy even though it is not on the latest firmware, and it doesn't care about DJI's geofencing.

If you, or others, feel that for your uav to be airworthy, you must abide by how DJI wants you to set up it up, then that is your call as the RP.

I am all ears when it comes to the regs and if I'm missing something I would like to hear it. But the notion that I'm operating in a "careless or reckless" manner because I have set a value of "0m" in how far the system will look for artificial NFZ areas within the FW is nonsense.

 

[aerialimagery]

Because it's about SAFETY! We have the most congested yet safest airspace in the world. The FAA is very strict on aircraft following MANUFACTURERS guidelines/instructions/manuals etc. In what way is hacking the manufacturers software not going against those things?

Odds are the FAA won't even know you've hacked the software but IF there is an incident then the book is going to be thrown at you and odds are your insurance company is not going to back you as well. That's a LOT of liability to take on your own shoulders as a commercial professional business.

OK where does the FAA say we must follow manufacturer's guidelines, manuals, instructions, etc.? "Hacking" isn't a bad word. I'm allowed to make my own drone and fly it safely and legally. Why can't I "remake" another drone?

The "hacking" has nothing to do with performance, anyway. I would see the point if it were about changing propeller sizes or modifying the shell, but this is simply about unlocking software that shouldn't have been locked up in the first place and about having the ability to fly where the FAA has given explicit permission to fly, in spite of DJI's efforts to prevent it.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

 

[BigAl07]

OK where does the FAA say we must follow manufacturer's guidelines, manuals, instructions, etc.? "Hacking" isn't a bad word. I'm allowed to make my own drone and fly it safely and legally. Why can't I "remake" another drone?

The "hacking" has nothing to do with performance, anyway. I would see the point if it were about changing propeller sizes or modifying the shell, but this is simply about unlocking software that shouldn't have been locked up in the first place and about having the ability to fly where the FAA has given explicit permission to fly, in spite of DJI's efforts to prevent it.

I'm merely imparting my minimal experience with sUAS and Manned aviation (combined coming in just over 6 decades) and giving my OPINION! Take it or leave it but either way I stand by what I say and if you follow my lead you won't have to worry about crossing the "grey" lines established by the FAA. This is how I operate and also how I teach/instruct others to set up and operate their sUAS operations.

When flying MANNED aircraft IF we are flying factory built aircraft we do follow the manufacturers guidelines, manuals, service reports/bulletins etc to a TEE!! Now if we BUILD our own guess what... we have to have those same manuals etc but we get to compile them ourselves. The flip side is they do get inspected and approved by the FAA (or NOT). So I'm merely applying FAA logic from manned aviation to unmanned aviation.

Is what I've "suggested" about sUAS written into the FAA FARs yet? No.... not yet. The FAA is notorious for giving us just enough rope to hang ourselves and it usually holds up in court, at least to some degree.

Modify/Hack the aircraft software to your hearts content if that's what you want to do. It's your aircraft, your company, and your tail-feathers on the line if there is an incident.

 

[Audie]

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.

mdurbanek,

I would not suggest that you do any by-passing NFZ's. I can only speak from experience, but here in Jacksonville, FL., working closely with the Jacksonville Sheriffs Office and the Jacksonville Fire and Rescue Department sUAS teams, the city of Jacksonville already have a method to detect sUASs. The second the sUAS powers on and then when the RC controller powers on, it sends an audio and visual alarm that an sUAS has powered on in the vicinity they are trying to protect. It is currently being used during TFRs at Jacksonville Jaguars games or in any scenes deemed necessary by JSO or JFRD.

The same technology has been used in airshows where a ground unit is radioed by the command center of the pilot's remote controller lat and long and is intercepted, and is told to bring down their sUAS.

 

[Dave Pitman]

I would not suggest that you do any by-passing NFZ's. I can only speak from experience, but here in Jacksonville, FL., working closely with the Jacksonville Sheriffs Office and the Jacksonville Fire and Rescue Department sUAS teams, the city of Jacksonville already have a method to detect sUASs. The second the sUAS powers on and then when the RC controller powers on, it sends an audio and visual alarm that an sUAS has powered on in the vicinity they are trying to protect. It is currently being used during TFRs at Jacksonville Jaguars games or in any scenes deemed necessary by JSO or JFRD.

The same technology has been used in airshows where a ground unit is radioed by the command center of the pilot's remote controller lat and long and is intercepted, and is told to bring down their sUAS.

You must have missed the point. I hope you understand the difference between FAA airspace restrictions and DJI's geofencing scheme?

If I'm flying legally, the folks can fire up all their countermeasures and knock themselves out.

Welcome to the fray where in some cases, opinions are given equal weighting as facts!