Welcome to InspirePilots.com

Join the leading DJI Inspire community for free!

UK Overriding DJI's No Fly Zones

Discussion in 'Certified UAV Pilots' started by The Editor, Aug 15, 2015.

  1. The Editor

    The Editor Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Messages:
    6,711
    Likes Received:
    3,870
    Whilst I do not advocate double posting and this has been mentioned elsewhere it probably has a better home in this section.
    I have raised a request with DJI R&D that for verifiable certified UAV operators who hold a current license/certificate issued by the relevant authority in the user's country, then DJI issue a code that can be entered via the app which disables the current No-Fly restrictions.
    It should be noted - This will ONLY be issued to operators who hold current UAV commercial permissions.
    I am mildly optimistic this will be granted once the logistics are organised :p
     
  2. lake_flyer

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    345
    Great initiative. Thanks for raising this at DJI.
     
  3. Quadpilot

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2013
    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    308
    Location:
    Chaska, MN
    I applaud your effort to get this issue on the table with DJI, but I would think that DJI might have concerns about how this could be applied without such code getting into the hands of those not certified for commercial operations. And how would verification of commercial certification be done, country by country? Seems like it would be an administrative and legal nightmare for DJI.
     
  4. The Editor

    The Editor Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Messages:
    6,711
    Likes Received:
    3,870
    Agreed - the technical implementation is extremely easy however, the administrative burdon to ensure that any certificate/licence is bonifide is another area.
    I think the legal aspect is not insurmountable providing the caveats and disclaimers were sufficient.
    The good news is they ARE looking at this internally and are willing to to discuss the matter.
    I guess the 'it could fall into the wrong hands' argument could be applied to anything - Guns, Explosives, Weapons etc.
    It would be a good selling point for them if they can advertise "No Flight Restrictions" for certified UAV Pilots or something similar.
    Only time will tell........
     
  5. Quadpilot

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2013
    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    308
    Location:
    Chaska, MN
    Please don't misunderstand: I am supportive of your request, and would hope that there is a valid and controllable process that would allow this to happen. Those with commercial certification and valid co-ordination with the appropriate ATC facilities ought to have a way to get this done technically. I am hopeful that your request gets a sincere hearing with the powers that be at DJI.
    It would not, however, quiet the griping of many posters here and in other forums that question the whole idea of imposing NFZs in the GO app, and would create a lot of pressure from them to get this into the hands of users with other than legitimate intentions or valid certification.
     
    lrwskyfilms and The Editor like this.
  6. damoncooper

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2014
    Messages:
    3,451
    Likes Received:
    1,620
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Note that wearing a tinfoil hat or disconnecting the GPS receiver will no longer work to execute >65 ft flights in NFZ as of v.1.0.4. You also cannot go back from this FW version and it may be a mandatory update.
     
  7. lake_flyer

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    345
    My opinion is that a commercial operation flown by a certified pilot always involves a craft with Registered international identification according to the ICAO and can only be operated legally by a certified pilot. If it's passed on to a hobbyist it looses it's ID. So the identification number of the craft could be the code to unlock the flight restrictions. DJI should have a database of registered aircraft ID's.

    They can have my PH number when they need it.
     
  8. Quadpilot

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2013
    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    308
    Location:
    Chaska, MN
    This seems doable, but would depend in large part on DJI's future plans for possibly instituting NFZs in their A2 and Naza FCs, and would be complicated by the issue of ownership transfer of registered craft and whether such sale is to certified owners or not. Both could well be possible given the level of current and future technology, but would require a true partnership between DJI, certified operators and governmental institutions that would protect the integrity of the ownership of NFZ over-ride codes. Given DJI's trend toward shifting the emphasis of product development, marketing and sales toward consumer and prosumer products, it remains to be seen whether this will be pursued on a priority basis. One can hope.
     
  9. The Editor

    The Editor Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Messages:
    6,711
    Likes Received:
    3,870
    An added 'complication' ....... Within the UK, under current laws and CAA regulations, a small unmanned aircraft not having a MTOM of greater than 7kg does not require an air worthiness certificate or registration other than specification and working parameters defined within an operators ops manual.
    Under normal CAP722 exemptions this is all that is required, although the serial number of the aircraft is recorded along with a photograph of the RPAS in question.
     
    Scotflieger likes this.
  10. lake_flyer

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    345
    If that's going to be the case in the Netherlands as well (could...the government is still discussing the options), I might better wait a while with registering my I1. Saves a small fortune. As it is now, every commercially used UAV needs a registration number over here. But our government is very slow in passing laws.
     
  11. Carlsberg

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2015
    Messages:
    353
    Likes Received:
    100
    Please post your source.

    Altitude is controlled by the barometer and I know from personal experience that once the barometer is disengaged there are no longer height restrictions of any kind.
     
  12. damoncooper

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2014
    Messages:
    3,451
    Likes Received:
    1,620
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    DJI. Nobody said anything about disconnecting the barometer.
     
  13. 3greens

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2015
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Salisbury UK/Hong Kong
    As someone new to this, but intending to gain the approval to operate commercially in the UK, I've been looking through forums and elsewhere to learn from other people's experience, and also seeing how legislation applies to SUA Ops.

    As ever with forums you find threads where people get bogged down with concerns that, in the big scheme of things, are not too important, and perhaps the issue of DJI No Fly Zones is one of them. Having looked at the list, and map, on DJI's website it looks perfectly reasonable, and well thought out to me. It appears that some consideration of aircraft performance certification might have gone into designing the NFZ's, but neither the list nor the map appears to indicate where the circles are centred. Presumably this would be on the aerodrome reference point, but the map centres the circle wherever the map says the airfield is, hence I'd have thought the map cannot be used to determine where you might fly in the vicinity of an airfield. You'd need an aviation chart. Regardless of the exact centre position the area outside the inner circle may still fall within an ATZ, and whether commercial or not CAP722, section 5, chapter 1, para 1.37 is good advice.

    Apart from the position of the circles, the choice of airports is also curious. Many parts of the world have none. In the UK a number of civil airports with significant commercial jet traffic are not included, nor is Battersea Heliport. Several US states have none, while, for instance, DFW has one but Love Field doesn't. In the same part of the world there are none in Oklahoma City, nor Little Rock. In France Annecy is a category B, having infrequent turboprop flights to Paris, along with business jet traffic displaced from the now quite busy Chambery which doesn't have a NFZ, but does have plenty of commercial jet traffic, especially in the winter, and which depending on the wind can be required to circle to land at low level.

    I used to own an old biplane in the UK, but I couldn't just go anywhere I wanted. Neverthless I was able to operate freely, non-radio, over much of the country. There will always be restrictions. At the moment SUA ops are remarkably unregulated, and attention might be better directed at watching what the likes of EASA and ICAO are up to to keep it that way. Incidentally I operated my aircraft from a private grass strip on a farm. There are a lot of those, usually unmarked on maps or charts, but often visible on Google Earth.

    3G.
     
    southerndoug and IrishSights like this.
  14. IrishSights

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,952
    Likes Received:
    453
    Location:
    Bangor, Northern Ireland, UK
    Welcome. Sorry but suggesting built-in NFZs "are not too important" is not true for commercial operators.

    The big problem for certified operators and their ability to carry out a paid job is that some airports are bang in the middle of built up or industrial areas where commercial operators can quite legitimately be requested to carry out a job but the aircraft won't take off or with a low ceiling.

    For example look at George Best Belfast City Airport, it covers half of Belfast.

    Getting the ATC nod is not the problem it's the builtin blanket NFZs that forcefully stop an Inspire from taking-off.

    So it is very important.
     
    The Editor likes this.
  15. The Editor

    The Editor Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Messages:
    6,711
    Likes Received:
    3,870
    Sorry, but I respectfully have to disagree with your comments - Having free and unfettered access to airspace is of paramount importance to a commercial operation.
    What happens if for instance, you receive a call from a potential client who wants some photographs taken for insurance purposes or you are offered work from an agricultural client but both these properties fall within DJI's NFZ? If the Inspire is your only rig then you have to turn work down which otherwise would be a source of income and say "sorry, cant do that, I can get ATC permission, I can get a NOTAM posted, I can get permissions from local residents no problem but......my aircraft wont let me take off there!
    Many SUAV operators undertake small domestic style roof surveys or take on jobs in areas that are urban and residential. This can all be done legally with the correct permissions etc but what cannot be overridden (yet) is DJI's blanket NFZ's which in many cases extend out into populated areas.
    Anyone holding a current PFAW will know exactly where they should or shouldn't be in airspace and know when they should have clearance from ATC. What is outside of their control however is DJI's arbitrary software inhibited flight areas.
     
    southerndoug likes this.
  16. Ibflyen

    Joined:
    May 21, 2015
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    79
    Maybe the nfz's were implemented because of the known problem of flyaways being experienced by some rather than being implemented because hobbyists don't have a clue how to make intelligent decisions?
    I guess if one is being paid to fly the i1 the possibility of a flyaway diminishes? There are plenty of examples of commercial pilots taking risks because they are being paid to carry out thier job. Should all commercial pilots be restricted by the NFZ because of a few making poor choices from the pressure of finishing a job for a client? No they shouldnt but neither should the hobbyist that flies responsibly!
    I'm not sure how to separate the responsible pilots that knows the rules and regulations from the irresponsible pilots putting people's lives in danger but letting pilots fly wherever they want simply because they are being paid to fly makes no sense to me! But hey this is just my opinion and I'm sure you guys that are going to spend thousands of dollars to become certified commercial pilots will not see my point of view because you have paid for the right to fly where ever you want. ;)
     
    pulsar747n and IrishSights like this.
  17. Quadpilot

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2013
    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    308
    Location:
    Chaska, MN
    This was posted over at RCGroups Inspire thread, discussing an interim solution for commercial operators to provide for an over-ride of NFZ restrictions on a case by case basis:

    http://www.heliguy.com/blog/2015/08/19/dji-go-no-fly-zones/

    It seems that DJI has been working on an interim solution, while developing a way to enable this for commercial applications in a more permanent way. ;)

    It seems they heard you, @The Editor :D
     
  18. The Editor

    The Editor Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Messages:
    6,711
    Likes Received:
    3,870
    Cant really take credit for the interim fix - That would be Justin and Joel over at Heliguy but hopefully the 'Online Service' will be up and running soon (I keep asking for updates) :)
     
  19. John888

    Joined:
    May 9, 2015
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
  20. Gary E

    Joined:
    May 23, 2015
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Medford, Oregon
    Seems like it leaves out operators in the US, since there are no formal sUAV licensing rules from the FAA.