Welcome, Autel Pilots!
Join our free Autel drone community today!
Join Us

New pilot concerned about geofencing

Jimmer0424

New Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2021
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Age
30
I am currently in the market and am debating what drone to get. Mainly going to be a casual videographer, but I live by a prison and an airport and want no issues if possible. What would you guys recommend as far as an evo 1 or evo 2.
Is there a way to avoid the new firmware update?
All.info is appreciated
 
Get an EVO II Pro (6K), its a few hundred dollars more than the 8K, however with more capabilities on both photo and video. The 8K is nice, however the Pro has the 1" sensor vs. 1/2" on the 8K, also 6K has more manual camera options enabled vs. the 8K. Shooting 4K 30fps log 10b hdr with the pro provides fantastic footage day and at night.

As for the geofence, just stay clear of the prison area, some in different states have or adding drone detection systems.

As for the airport, is it controlled or uncontrolled airspace? If it is uncontrolled, then good to go just watch out for planes and use common sense. Otoh, if its controlled, you can get LAANC authorization which is very easy, and if 107, you can also now get night LAANC up to published altitude (currently not yet enabled for hobby/rec). If you need to fly on a regular basis where you are or will be, and are part 107, then simply go to dronezone and make an airspace authorization request for your area that is different than what LAANC would allow. For example, if you are in a 200 grid and you can safely describe how you would fly to say 300' in a given area and why, if 107, you could get a 107.41 authorization good for some period of time. Otoh, where you used to be able to get "blanket" authorizations, those are now being phased out and you are to use LAANC. They key points are, get 107 if you are not, either get in the habit of using LAANC if you are in controlled airspace, or, get a longer term 107.41 authorization via dronezone. Good luck
 
Last edited:
Hey, @Jimmer0424 , welcome to the forum. Please don't create multiple threads on the same subject. Thank you!

 
As Dave indicated in your other thread… Autel doesn’t have GeoFencing in USA. The out of box DJI does… every single one, although can easily be worked around on most newer platforms: M2P up through M2AS & M210. As long as you don’t immediately upgrade to current FW version... if upgraded to newer FW released after the successful certificate hack, you’ll have no current options to block GeoFencing.

The EVO2 6K is a great option… little pricey if just getting into drones. The Mini2 or Air2S are lower cost options; and the soon to appear Autel Lite+ similar to Air2S but with adjustable aperture will be a great option too… and it’s indicated to have same 6K camera as the larger EVO2.

Back on DJI… check out DroneHacks for highly successful & simple hack that eliminates GeoZones & Altitude. If you take that route… download DJI Asst for the craft and Do Not update via iOS / Android.
 
I am currently in the market and am debating what drone to get. Mainly going to be a casual videographer, but I live by a prison and an airport and want no issues if possible. What would you guys recommend as far as an evo 1 or evo 2.
Is there a way to avoid the new firmware update?
All.info is appreciated
There is no geofencing with Autel products, except for China & Japan.
This is a NFZ database that advises you when you are flying in or approaching a NFZ.
You can still fly, period.
The onus is on you to ensure you are compliant with your country's airspace regulations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gschulzuio
Get an EVO II Pro (6K), its a few hundred dollars more than the 8K, however with more capabilities on both photo and video. The 8K is nice, however the Pro has the 1" sensor vs. 1/2" on the 8K, also 6K has more manual camera options enabled vs. the 8K. Shooting 4K 30fps log 10b hdr with the pro provides fantastic footage day and at night.

As for the geofence, just stay clear of the prison area, some in different states have or adding drone detection systems.

As for the airport, is it controlled or uncontrolled airspace? If it is uncontrolled, then good to go just watch out for planes and use common sense. Otoh, if its controlled, you can get LAANC authorization which is very easy, and if 107, you can also now get night LAANC up to published altitude (currently not yet enabled for hobby/rec). If you need to fly on a regular basis where you are or will be, and are part 107, then simply go to dronezone and make an airspace authorization request for your area that is different than what LAANC would allow. For example, if you are in a 200 grid and you can safely describe how you would fly to say 300' in a given area and why, if 107, you could get a 107.41 authorization good for some period of time. Otoh, where you used to be able to get "blanket" authorizations, those are now being phased out and you are to use LAANC. They key points are, get 107 if you are not, either get in the habit of using LAANC if you are in controlled airspace, or, get a longer term 107.41 authorization via dronezone. Good luck

New pilot concerned about geofencing !!!!​

 
There is no geofencing with Autel products, except for China & Japan.
This is a NFZ database that advises you when you are flying in or approaching a NFZ.
You can still fly, period.
The onus is on you to ensure you are compliant with your country's airspace regulations.
You have stated the exact reason why I will probably not upgrade my Mavic 2 Pro to the M3 and am waiting to see what Autel has to offer next year. I am a firm believer in individual freedom linked with individual responsibility and have found that 90% of the time people are trustworthy and responsible if properly educated in what that responsibility entails. A simple warning that the drone is near or entering a restricted area with a message to get ATC authorization to fly should be sufficient. Alternately, what DJI should have employed is a policy that Part 107 pilots (or international equivalents) can apply for universal unlocking so never to have to be bothered to have to beg Big Brother DJI for permission to un-brick their drones. But that's not happening.

As a side note, while the Mavic 3 has *some* significant upgrades to the Mavic 2, the biggest upgrade is the PRICE. I have to wonder if even the EVO 2 can compete with the video quality of the Mavic 3? Can anyone weigh in on that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Curiousian
You have stated the exact reason why I will probably not upgrade my Mavic 2 Pro to the M3 and am waiting to see what Autel has to offer next year. I am a firm believer in individual freedom linked with individual responsibility and have found that 90% of the time people are trustworthy and responsible if properly educated in what that responsibility entails. A simple warning that the drone is near or entering a restricted area with a message to get ATC authorization to fly should be sufficient. Alternately, what DJI should have employed is a policy that Part 107 pilots (or international equivalents) can apply for universal unlocking so never to have to be bothered to have to beg Big Brother DJI for permission to un-brick their drones. But that's not happening.

As a side note, while the Mavic 3 has *some* significant upgrades to the Mavic 2, the biggest upgrade is the PRICE. I have to wonder if even the EVO 2 can compete with the video quality of the Mavic 3? Can anyone weigh in on that?
I’m a strong supporter for manufactures NOT to self impose flight restrictions of any sort… unless ALL participate & perform the same… voluntarily or govt requirements. None or All… but that won’t happen mainly due to market share & liabilities.

Similar to 1950’s Auto manufactures adopting seat belts voluntarily to prevent law suits… that developed later into law to “equip“ cars with belts… suits continued and lobbying pushed new law requiring seatbelts to be worn. Again, “requesting“ didn’t work; placing a light on dash failed, adding an obnoxious “dinger” failed… simply unpluged & bypassed… and that was life saving in comparison to hovering over a neighbor’s home or local football game.

The primary reason DJI does GeoZoning is to CYA for their own protection from legal suits. Being the high majority of consumer / prosumer sUAV’s, their products are the majority that are purchased by newbies,pleasure hobbyist, and carefree attitude. The suggestion of warning or notices on screen is essentially useless to high majority of casual flyers… it’ll be ignored and openingly flown in public eye presenting “drones” as negative and something the Public should have concern... evolved from irresponsible practice of non-professionals that all sUAV now endure… especially the Professional.

Those are probably the 2 main reasons we’re entertaining various new levels of control by Govt. If it hadn’t been abused over the last 5-10yrs, if casual flyers respected the existing casual regulations, gave attention to society protection, extended curtesy over roofs & back yards, didn’t abuse public attractions, and didn’t use the drone as a neighbor aerial “pest“ it wouldn’t have the General Public negative correlation it so boldly carries.

That unrestricted behavior resulted in encouraged civil suits of trespassing, spying & harassment, etc. Many lost the court battle; which simply encouraged pushing local ordinances & laws… several of those lost which inturn motivated Govt bodies to create new laws and pressuring Federal legislators to modify FAA regulations.

I’m pretty confident if Autel had the DJI market density and level of law suits brought forth similar to DJI for the idiots creating problems… Autel would provide a form of control too… much lower cost preventing than suit compensations.

That being stated… I do believe we’re on a short road where all sUAV Manufacturers will have requirements to limit & control similar to DJI… all moot soon most likely. The instruments & tools now being introduced within new regulations will easily allow additional future capabilities to monitor, regulate & enforce.

In the interim, applying a simplistic certificate hack to remove DJI’s restrictions isn’t difficult nor improper. I personally think DJI should offer this “tool” themselves with the signed-off acknowledgement all risks & liabilities assumed by Owner, not Manufacturer. To regulate this to solely PT107 certified, when 4+ other Manufactures provide similar unrestricted to everyone… again, All in or out.

Although should be noted, M3 has no known ability to apply a false certificate… it would be limited to GeoZone & Altitude. As well as recent new FW for older platforms.

I currently share the decision question to purchase M3 or EVO2. I‘m thinking a EVO2 Enterprise would be a nice addition… although Autel has multiple issues as Company and EVO2 has it’s share of issues to resolve… which if were DJI, the majority would have already been addressed within first 6-8 months… not nearly 2 Yrs later without much attention.

Another concern, The EVO is about the age of Mavic 2 Pro… released 2018, the Mavic Pro released 2016. The EVO is already a dead craft to Autel, soon EOL… batteries & parts soon discontinued this Winter. The 2 yr “older“ Mavic Pro remains an active craft, fully supported & serviced by DJI and the equal EVO aged 2018 M2P/Z still fully in it’s Prime. Will the support and availability outlast the newer 2020 EVO2 Pro... in a lesser degree it already has regarding the v1 electronic components that may impact repairs in near future for 1st Gen. Regarding sales, the EVO2 v1 has pretty much lost resale value when ver2 released.

Not counting the rumored EVO3 release… it’s not even a reality… scant rumors even. Plus the publicly announced Nano & Lite aren‘t even a certainty to shelf product. I also had plans for the Lite+… that‘s faded a bit too.

Would like to see Autel grow and gain strength… support their aging products and release new FW & App versions addressing current issues and new features. It’s a certainty DJI will correct the majority of issues and add features.
 
I'm sure you're mostly right. But how hard would it be for DJI to simply require a liability waiver and just permanently unlock our drones which is what they do currently in bits and pieces. Or, if they insist on maintaining geofencing, why couldn't they build in modules like Aloft (formerly Kittyhawk) where you can apply for ATC authorization through the app which automatically provides an unlock code?
 
I'm sure you're mostly right. But how hard would it be for DJI to simply require a liability waiver and just permanently unlock our drones which is what they do currently in bits and pieces. Or, if they insist on maintaining geofencing, why couldn't they build in modules like Aloft (formerly Kittyhawk) where you can apply for ATC authorization through the app which automatically provides an unlock code?
I'd agree... Indicated that above... have DJI offer with a sign-off of legal responsibility & liabilities. At least make the Unlock quick & simplistic.

Only issue, as with Bell helmets and several gun manufacturers as example that had liability clauses... that sign-off didn't work and companies were lost due to silly legal cases. Bell was multilated by so many cases: My Brother/Son, etc... died hitting his head on a retaining wall, helmet didn't work. Let's not mention excessive speed, poor riding, etc. Helmet didn't work.

Now expand that to 1 or multiple cases where an idiot flies a Mavic onto airstrip and it gets drawn into jet turbine... plane crashes and 300 die. Have similar occur several times around the country... and you've got a bankruptcy waiting for DJI or any brand caused by idiots.

Sounds wild... but for the number of irresponsible that wonder into BestBuy & walk out able to fly a craft by "screen visual" miles without one thought of their actions. If not for geozones, we'd probably have that occurring... if you had maybe 10-15% of these Buyers purchase Autel we'd probably read more of these incidents occurring... high majority simply always buy DJI.

Another option - consider... have some form of Buyer requirement. Managing whom can walk out with a highly capable drone... maybe seperate "toy" from a capable sUAV... toys are unrestricted. Reality, that won't happen either.

I'd agree... have some means to unlock by DJI would be most desired! Lacking that, a workaround is a game of hacks. I'm amazed how few do the hack vs complain on limitations or cost of hack. Then on the other end... Many site how a hack is "pseudo illegal" or vodoo bad... when other Brands are unlimited out of box.
 
I’m a strong supporter for manufactures NOT to self impose flight restrictions of any sort… unless ALL participate & perform the same… voluntarily or govt requirements. None or All… but that won’t happen mainly due to market share & liabilities.

Similar to 1950’s Auto manufactures adopting seat belts voluntarily to prevent law suits… that developed later into law to “equip“ cars with belts… suits continued and lobbying pushed new law requiring seatbelts to be worn. Again, “requesting“ didn’t work; placing a light on dash failed, adding an obnoxious “dinger” failed… simply unpluged & bypassed… and that was life saving in comparison to hovering over a neighbor’s home or local football game.

The primary reason DJI does GeoZoning is to CYA for their own protection from legal suits. Being the high majority of consumer / prosumer sUAV’s, their products are the majority that are purchased by newbies,pleasure hobbyist, and carefree attitude. The suggestion of warning or notices on screen is essentially useless to high majority of casual flyers… it’ll be ignored and openingly flown in public eye presenting “drones” as negative and something the Public should have concern... evolved from irresponsible practice of non-professionals that all sUAV now endure… especially the Professional.

Those are probably the 2 main reasons we’re entertaining various new levels of control by Govt. If it hadn’t been abused over the last 5-10yrs, if casual flyers respected the existing casual regulations, gave attention to society protection, extended curtesy over roofs & back yards, didn’t abuse public attractions, and didn’t use the drone as a neighbor aerial “pest“ it wouldn’t have the General Public negative correlation it so boldly carries.

That unrestricted behavior resulted in encouraged civil suits of trespassing, spying & harassment, etc. Many lost the court battle; which simply encouraged pushing local ordinances & laws… several of those lost which inturn motivated Govt bodies to create new laws and pressuring Federal legislators to modify FAA regulations.

I’m pretty confident if Autel had the DJI market density and level of law suits brought forth similar to DJI for the idiots creating problems… Autel would provide a form of control too… much lower cost preventing than suit compensations.

That being stated… I do believe we’re on a short road where all sUAV Manufacturers will have requirements to limit & control similar to DJI… all moot soon most likely. The instruments & tools now being introduced within new regulations will easily allow additional future capabilities to monitor, regulate & enforce.

In the interim, applying a simplistic certificate hack to remove DJI’s restrictions isn’t difficult nor improper. I personally think DJI should offer this “tool” themselves with the signed-off acknowledgement all risks & liabilities assumed by Owner, not Manufacturer. To regulate this to solely PT107 certified, when 4+ other Manufactures provide similar unrestricted to everyone… again, All in or out.

Although should be noted, M3 has no known ability to apply a false certificate… it would be limited to GeoZone & Altitude. As well as recent new FW for older platforms.

I currently share the decision question to purchase M3 or EVO2. I‘m thinking a EVO2 Enterprise would be a nice addition… although Autel has multiple issues as Company and EVO2 has it’s share of issues to resolve… which if were DJI, the majority would have already been addressed within first 6-8 months… not nearly 2 Yrs later without much attention.

Another concern, The EVO is about the age of Mavic 2 Pro… released 2018, the Mavic Pro released 2016. The EVO is already a dead craft to Autel, soon EOL… batteries & parts soon discontinued this Winter. The 2 yr “older“ Mavic Pro remains an active craft, fully supported & serviced by DJI and the equal EVO aged 2018 M2P/Z still fully in it’s Prime. Will the support and availability outlast the newer 2020 EVO2 Pro... in a lesser degree it already has regarding the v1 electronic components that may impact repairs in near future for 1st Gen. Regarding sales, the EVO2 v1 has pretty much lost resale value when ver2 released.

Not counting the rumored EVO3 release… it’s not even a reality… scant rumors even. Plus the publicly announced Nano & Lite aren‘t even a certainty to shelf product. I also had plans for the Lite+… that‘s faded a bit too.

Would like to see Autel grow and gain strength… support their aging products and release new FW & App versions addressing current issues and new features. It’s a certainty DJI will correct the majority of issues and add features.
i agree that all oems should be treated the same.
 
I'd agree... Indicated that above... have DJI offer with a sign-off of legal responsibility & liabilities. At least make the Unlock quick & simplistic.

Only issue, as with Bell helmets and several gun manufacturers as example that had liability clauses... that sign-off didn't work and companies were lost due to silly legal cases. Bell was multilated by so many cases: My Brother/Son, etc... died hitting his head on a retaining wall, helmet didn't work. Let's not mention excessive speed, poor riding, etc. Helmet didn't work.

Now expand that to 1 or multiple cases where an idiot flies a Mavic onto airstrip and it gets drawn into jet turbine... plane crashes and 300 die. Have similar occur several times around the country... and you've got a bankruptcy waiting for DJI or any brand caused by idiots.

Sounds wild... but for the number of irresponsible that wonder into BestBuy & walk out able to fly a craft by "screen visual" miles without one thought of their actions. If not for geozones, we'd probably have that occurring... if you had maybe 10-15% of these Buyers purchase Autel we'd probably read more of these incidents occurring... high majority simply always buy DJI.

Another option - consider... have some form of Buyer requirement. Managing whom can walk out with a highly capable drone... maybe seperate "toy" from a capable sUAV... toys are unrestricted. Reality, that won't happen either.

I'd agree... have some means to unlock by DJI would be most desired! Lacking that, a workaround is a game of hacks. I'm amazed how few do the hack vs complain on limitations or cost of hack. Then on the other end... Many site how a hack is "pseudo illegal" or vodoo bad... when other Brands are unlimited out of box.
uh no. i won't be signing anything to buy and fly my recreational drone. and there shouldnt be different classes of drones with restricted buyer's requirements. you sure you live in america? :oops:
 
uh no. i won't be signing anything to buy and fly my recreational drone. and there shouldnt be different classes of drones with restricted buyer's requirements. you sure you live in america? :oops:
Lol... that was just another example to prevent idiots creating a bad name for drone environment. We wouldn't have any additional regulations now if it hadn't been previously abused by being unrestricted. We had some self imposed regulations with older RC aircraft... sanctioned airfields, etc. Those weren't hard line, more best practices that community followed to demonstrate responsibility and safety.

That restriction you fear if not self imposed by community will be imposed by Regulations eventually... that's a certainty. Personally, I'd rather have self imposed requirements by community and avoid harsher regulations by Law Makers. America has more regulations than realized... that you benefit from directly & indirectly based on age, qualifications, experience, etc.

You qualify, test and sign off to Drive a Car, then a seperate requirements to ride a motorcycle. Those evoled based on society evaluating avg age, maturity, experience, etc. Back up not so many decades and there weren't any requirements or licensing... just learned and drove. There are different classifications for driving different categories of vehicles: cars, bikes, trucks, material hauled, etc. Same for aircraft, a hobbyist single engine pilot can't fly a multi-engine, jet or heavy body. That is the American way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bonanzaman
I'd agree... Indicated that above... have DJI offer with a sign-off of legal responsibility & liabilities. At least make the Unlock quick & simplistic.

Only issue, as with Bell helmets and several gun manufacturers as example that had liability clauses... that sign-off didn't work and companies were lost due to silly legal cases. Bell was multilated by so many cases: My Brother/Son, etc... died hitting his head on a retaining wall, helmet didn't work. Let's not mention excessive speed, poor riding, etc. Helmet didn't work.

Now expand that to 1 or multiple cases where an idiot flies a Mavic onto airstrip and it gets drawn into jet turbine... plane crashes and 300 die. Have similar occur several times around the country... and you've got a bankruptcy waiting for DJI or any brand caused by idiots.

Sounds wild... but for the number of irresponsible that wonder into BestBuy & walk out able to fly a craft by "screen visual" miles without one thought of their actions. If not for geozones, we'd probably have that occurring... if you had maybe 10-15% of these Buyers purchase Autel we'd probably read more of these incidents occurring... high majority simply always buy DJI.

Another option - consider... have some form of Buyer requirement. Managing whom can walk out with a highly capable drone... maybe seperate "toy" from a capable sUAV... toys are unrestricted. Reality, that won't happen either.

I'd agree... have some means to unlock by DJI would be most desired! Lacking that, a workaround is a game of hacks. I'm amazed how few do the hack vs complain on limitations or cost of hack. Then on the other end... Many site how a hack is "pseudo illegal" or vodoo bad... when other Brands are unlimited out of box.
I understand completely that you don’t want a new Best Buy customer ignorantly running out to his nearest runway testing a new 707 with a drone ingestion test.

But I’ve said earlier, verify being Part 107 by submitting a copy of the license corresponding to the drone registration and make the unlock process a simple waiver/ acknowledgement. A Part 107 pilot at least has been tested and confirmed that he knows what the rules are.

Not to get into pontification, the legal system is upside down in so many ways. Right now you have states like New York that are trying to go after gun manufacturers when a third-party unlawfully uses their products. The legal profession seems to have lost its moral compass ages ago and in my opinion” justice” today is just a term that we throw around and has all but lost any semblance of genuine meaning. Sorry for the digression.
 
Alternately, what DJI should have employed is a policy that Part 107 pilots (or international equivalents) can apply for universal unlocking so never to have to be bothered to have to beg Big Brother DJI for permission to un-brick their drones. But that's not happening.
Actually DJI has had for several years custom unlocks for blanket areas. I have different area custom unlock codes (they can have a radius of about 30km) that can be used by any of my DJI aircraft/drones from Mini's to P4Ps. As an example, one of those blanket custom unlock codes includes at least five airports four of which are D and one being B.

Go to DJI flysafe website, select custom unlock, provide information including your aircraft FC (Flight Control SN, not your remote, not your aircraft SN) serial numbers, the area and alt you want unlocked, from when to when (months or year), provide some documentation that you have or will have authorizations (e.g. LAANC, 107.41 coas, waivers, etc). If you provided the correct info, you should have your unlock codes in 5-20 minutes (this is a one time process).

Once you have your unlock codes you apply them to your aircraft via the controller/app, then select the unlock code when you are going to fly in an area that needs unlock.

Can you do it all ad hoc within seconds?

Once you have the unlock on your aircraft (an unlock can apply to multiple aircraft), its as fast as how quickly you can select app unlock option, tape the unlock buttons and go.

Now, back to Autel, "IF" they ever do implement geofence in the US, then Autel "NEEDS" to have a self-service (with moderation approval) similar custom unlock process to what DJI has.
 
Actually DJI has had for several years custom unlocks for blanket areas. I have different area custom unlock codes (they can have a radius of about 30km) that can be used by any of my DJI aircraft/drones from Mini's to P4Ps. As an example, one of those blanket custom unlock codes includes at least five airports four of which are D and one being B.

Go to DJI flysafe website, select custom unlock, provide information including your aircraft FC (Flight Control SN, not your remote, not your aircraft SN) serial numbers, the area and alt you want unlocked, from when to when (months or year), provide some documentation that you have or will have authorizations (e.g. LAANC, 107.41 coas, waivers, etc). If you provided the correct info, you should have your unlock codes in 5-20 minutes (this is a one time process).

Once you have your unlock codes you apply them to your aircraft via the controller/app, then select the unlock code when you are going to fly in an area that needs unlock.

Can you do it all ad hoc within seconds?

Once you have the unlock on your aircraft (an unlock can apply to multiple aircraft), its as fast as how quickly you can select app unlock option, tape the unlock buttons and go.

Now, back to Autel, "IF" they ever do implement geofence in the US, then Autel "NEEDS" to have a self-service (with moderation approval) similar custom unlock process to what DJI has.
yep... used those too... but not always successful.
It's dependent on the accuracy of the DJI database... not FAA but DJI data. That effects many areas as cities develope and modify.

If there is an Old Jail, Prison, Old Airport or area that is in the DJI Database, you can't get a short or long term unlock. If you check the DJI maps... several areas are not unlockable regardless of requests..

I've come across 2 Old Jails, 1 old Prison... been gone for over 5-8 yrs and still within DJI's DB. I've contacted DJI, provided the GPS Coordinates and they've even acknowledged after researching the jails were long gone. They then said, they'll update the database... normally takes 6-18 months minimal to go through the chain of actions. After much exchange, they finally offer an temporary unlock that's good for a period of time I don't recall.

I had tired fussing with them... email, 1-2 days wait, email, 1-2 days,etc.
I purchased a few NoLimitDrone licenses and later DroneHack licenses and problem permanently resolved on I2, MP, M2P, P4P, MA2, MA2S.
 
yep... used those too... but not always successful.
It's dependent on the accuracy of the DJI database... not FAA but DJI data. That effects many areas as cities develope and modify.

If there is an Old Jail, Prison, Old Airport or area that is in the DJI Database, you can't get a short or long term unlock. If you check the DJI maps... several areas are not unlockable regardless of requests..

I've come across 2 Old Jails, 1 old Prison... been gone for over 5-8 yrs and still within DJI's DB. I've contacted DJI, provided the GPS Coordinates and they've even acknowledged after researching the jails were long gone. They then said, they'll update the database... normally takes 6-18 months minimal to go through the chain of actions. After much exchange, they finally offer an temporary unlock that's good for a period of time I don't recall.

I had tired fussing with them... email, 1-2 days wait, email, 1-2 days,etc.
I purchased a few NoLimitDrone licenses and later DroneHack licenses and problem permanently resolved on I2, MP, M2P, P4P, MA2, MA2S.
Interesting, have not run into any of those issues, even in NFZs. Now and then will come across an area where there is an extended safety or altitude zone, get a new custom unlock for that blanket area and then no issues. The longest had to wait for a custom unlock was an hour, about 30-45 min of that was me forgetting to check the spam folder as they would sometimes end up there. Usually you will get a notice within few minutes if it is rejected due to an error (e.g. bad FC, for example submit aircraft SN or controller SN vs. the FC SN, or, too wide of an area, or an attachment). If no rejection/error, then usually within 15-20 minutes, sometimes faster will get the approval, then connect app/controller to web to get the download and good to go.
 
I understand completely that you don’t want a new Best Buy customer ignorantly running out to his nearest runway testing a new 707 with a drone ingestion test.

But I’ve said earlier, verify being Part 107 by submitting a copy of the license corresponding to the drone registration and make the unlock process a simple waiver/ acknowledgement. A Part 107 pilot at least has been tested and confirmed that he knows what the rules are.

Not to get into pontification, the legal system is upside down in so many ways. Right now you have states like New York that are trying to go after gun manufacturers when a third-party unlawfully uses their products. The legal profession seems to have lost its moral compass ages ago and in my opinion” justice” today is just a term that we throw around and has all but lost any semblance of genuine meaning. Sorry for the digression.
I've agreed with you... that would be an option for the Professional. But as in post above.... that won't work for sections or areas that are indicated as unlockable by DJI... and by their data not FAA. Currently there are many areas you can't get unlocked now with requests that have no reason to be locked other than old inaccurate data.

Also I'm still on the "all or none" on geozones. If a hobbyist can fly an Autel, Skydio, Yuneec, etc... then same should be available with DJI.

I'm with ya on the ridiculous laws or use of laws to obtain actions not intended by law and defies common sense & logic. That certainly includes firearm manufacturers.
 
Interesting, have not run into any of those issues, even in NFZs. Now and then will come across an area where there is an extended safety or altitude zone, get a new custom unlock for that blanket area and then no issues. The longest had to wait for a custom unlock was an hour, about 30-45 min of that was me forgetting to check the spam folder as they would sometimes end up there. Usually you will get a notice within few minutes if it is rejected due to an error (e.g. bad FC, for example submit aircraft SN or controller SN vs. the FC SN, or, too wide of an area, or an attachment). If no rejection/error, then usually within 15-20 minutes, sometimes faster will get the approval, then connect app/controller to web to get the download and good to go.
Felt the same, for years had no issue. Provide Credit card, setup profile and any time in future was a quick few clicks and all set..

Over time and app updates, became more problematic... some short... some so delayed it ruined the mission schedule. Got so frustrating, Why even need to deal with their process, simply not their role... back to the purpose of CYA of Idiot coverage. No longer an issue for a small fee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gschulzuio

Latest threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
11,229
Messages
102,661
Members
9,821
Latest member
Bigmaxsg