Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 20 of 20
  1. #16 Top |
    Flight Ready Visioneer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Louisville, KY, USA
    Posts
    60
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rep Power
    6
    And most amazingly, no one's resorted to name calling or ancestry insinuations.

    Frankly, civil debate is a great way to learn. It's very difficult to free oneself from one's own biases and perspective. And even agreeing to disagree is not necessarily a bad thing ... for example, it's way better than settling differences of opinion with a duel (interestingly my oath of office required that I swear I'd never fought in a duel or been a second in a duel).


    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Last edited by Visioneer; 04-22-14 at 05:25 PM.

  2. #17 Top |
    Flight Ready iDrone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Hollywood, Ca.
    Posts
    54
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rep Power
    6
    Im happy to discuss almost anything sharing views and exploring other's, but I find it futile & exhausting to argue over anything, a cultivated skill attorneys are paid handsomely to do for a living. So I'll abandon the discussion after this post. As I said they are just my views and those shared by a few others. I've expressed them mostly in my first post, and as the forum topic reads, it's a message to DJI from one of its customers.

    I really don't expect a response from DJI nor wish to argue with anyone. As a consumer I vote with my buck, and if DJI insists on forcibly incorporating always-ON NFZ, I won't be casting that vote. If the entire industry follows suit, is mandated thru legislation to do so, or requires certification & licensing, I will likely abandon this new hobby & sharing it with others altogether, as then it becomes way too much a bother than its worth to me, for what little time I have to enjoy this small percentile hobby to begin with.


    Quote Originally Posted by Visioneer View Post
    The reality is that many of the laws we have were written just because of that. I'm on a small suburban city council. I can attest to the fact that many laws have been written because someone did something that anyone with a lick of common sense would not have done. It's unfortunate, but it's how we've evolved to protect the majority from the foibles of the few.
    Sad, but yes this is another way in which we unintentionally create "victimless crimes" in the name of protecting society from the stupid & irresponsible. I envision a day when a responsible RC pilot is accused, inspected, & found guilty of not having equipped his machine with an NFZ AutoPilot and fined for the infraction while the hooded idiot pilot who buzzes & harasses people, pets, and property out of sight in FPV brags about his video sorties over the Internet w/o so much as a slap on the wrist. Another sad day for jurisprudence in the name of protecting society from itself.


    Quote Originally Posted by Visioneer View Post
    Perhaps a valid point but the upgrade wasn't forced (I haven't upgraded, and many have down graded). The DJI upgrade video I watched made it very clear there were flight restrictions incorporated. As I haven't done it I don't know but, if not included, the upgrade notice should have pointed this out before you hit install (I suspect it probably did not).
    Again, it's one thing to advertise a product with full disclosure, and another to restrict or limit its performance w/o consent post-purchase. There is no v2.0a or v3.0a firmware for those who want continued support of their purchased product for bug fixes & feature enhancements (radar now shows beyond original Mi/Km limit, for example) but do not want NFZ AutoPilot implementation. This is a form of passive-aggressive coercion, "If you don't upgrade, you won't get any more bug-fixes or feature enhancements" and "We do not recommend downgrading firmware". You can also view it as built-in obsolescence, esp if they incorporate a switch for NFZ in a future product.


    Quote Originally Posted by Visioneer View Post
    This analogy breaks down for the following reason ... before you're legally allowed to operate a vehicle you are required to demonstrate that you know the laws regards vehicle operation and demonstrate at least a minimal physical ability to do so, i.e., you have to get a license. There is no parallel certification process for piloting a model aircraft - you don't have to know aviation "rules" and you don't have to demonstrate that you're capable of safe operation. You can just buy one and go flying.
    Agreed, and I see I neglected to mention the point I was alluding to... If we exacerbate the paranoia via "voluntarily" forcibly implementing NFZ technology at the OEM level under the guise of "our industry can police itself and render society inviolate" I think they only seed the argument and shoot themselves and the entire RC industry in the foot. What next, ID transponders? At whose expense? There is already movement afoot to mandate Certification & Licensing of private citizens & hobbyists before being allowed to fly UAS. A step even deeper (another victimless crime) is to make it illegal to own one w/o said cert & lic.


    Quote Originally Posted by Visioneer View Post
    And yet, manufacturers of cars build in all manner of safety devices (some as salable features, some due to liability concerns, and some due to law). Your point is that manufacturers are not responsible (yet), but many find out (after the fact) that they are held responsible. They cannot rely on where a judge (or worse, a jury) might decide their liability ends. Many cases have been decided that because someone (or some company) could have prevented something, they should have done so ... and they're held liable.
    A touch of slight-of-word here? If brakes fail or an accelerator pedal sticks and this results in harming person & property, the manufacturer is liable (here in the USA). If the driver loses control of his otherwise perfect vehicle driving over the speed limit, he's liable. There is no No-Drive Zone AutoPilot for vehicles (yet). Self-driving cars are definitely in the works, however they all have "OFF" switches and leave the choice to... the driver.


    Quote Originally Posted by Visioneer View Post
    Where I would not agree is that we need a catastrophe before we consider some manner of preventative measures. There have been a few real (model 'copters falling into a crowd) and near miss (full scale 'copter) incidents reported. Fortunately there were no serious injuries in the former and the latter was, well, just a miss; but the notion that we need someone maimed or killed, or a full scale craft collision before we act is a bit too shortsighted.
    I never said we needed a catastrophe before considering measures. I said:

    "...suddenly overnight one new class of smart RC wreaks mass paranoia & stirs the "there outta' be a law" crowds into a frenzy based on imaginary catastrophes? There is insufficient evidence to support the need to forcibly impose such restrictions."

    Fear of impending doom can be a mass-motivator to the paranoid who choose feel threatened and not utilize logic & reason to evaluate evidence, evidence which hardly presents a sufficient case (IMHO) to cripple an entire hobby & industry with legislation. A simpler way for these simpletons to resolve their fear is to illegalize the ownership or use of UAV's by private citizens altogether. This has already been tested in places like Texas I believe (pig farmer pour pigs blood into creek, caught on camera by UAV).

    But like trying to get a STOP sign installed at an intersection to help protect kids & elderly in a residential neighborhood, all it takes is one or two deaths and it's a done deal. A few more mortally adverse incidents involving UAS's and this too may pass.


    Quote Originally Posted by Visioneer View Post
    I realize you've expressed a disinterest in DJI's motivation, but the reality is that's key to why they've done this. If it's because they expect some certification process or because of their liability concerns, your entreaty for a disable switch will never be heard. It goes directly against their motivation. If it's for some other reason, perhaps you've a shot. Knowing their motivation is key to formulating your request. If they're doing it because they think it's a neat feature (highly unlikely), you might have a chance of being heard.
    DJI's reasoning for incorporating NFZ sans OFF Switch is indeed irrelevant to me; the purpose of my message to DJI was inform them that for many of us, such restrictions may be counterproductive to customer loyalty & interest in purchasing current & future DJI products.

    I leave the floor open for others to support DJI's decision or not.

    Have fun guy's & gal's,
    Tom

  3. #18 Top |
    Uses Prop guards
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Townsville Australia.
    Posts
    24
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rep Power
    0
    The idea that the average citizen will read AND understand the relevant laws is simply laughable. I've read the Australian laws regarding use and it's written in complex legalese. I can't see little johnny sitting down and reading the legislation on Xmas day before going out to play.

  4. #19 Top |
    Flight Ready Visioneer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Louisville, KY, USA
    Posts
    60
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rep Power
    6
    I apologize to iDrone if he found this to be an argument. He is certainly correct in saying that it's futile in the sense that it's not within any of our powers to impose any consensus we might arrive at. By the same token it strikes me that a bit of back and forth has the potential to clarify, modify, or even improve a position; or unearth a notion that no one even had at the outset.

    I was not on my high school's debate team but several of my friends were. Practice for them consisted of debating an issue on an intraschool level before an interschool meet. Perhaps incorrectly, I view discussions here as being on that intraschool level ... just kicking ideas and concepts around among ourselves.

  5. #20 Top |
    Respected Pilot pault's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Liverpool UK
    Posts
    97
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rep Power
    6
    The problem I have with the No Fly Zones, apart from an instinctive dislike of being told what I can or cannot do, is that they do not even function correctly. As others have pointed out some of the runways on class b airports are not even included. The whole concept can lull people into a false sense of security - you can almost hear people saying "well the app told me it was safe to fly here" as they are caught taking off on a flightpath.

    The amount of work required to implement this properly is mind boggling, each airport would need detailed mapping so the likely next step is to broaden the zones to make sure that everywhere is covered. This would then severely curtail the places a lot of people could fly in.

    In short, the whole concept is poorly thought out and is the start of a long slippery slope.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •