DJI will release a mandatory firmware update for the Phantom 2, Phantom 2 Vision, and Phantom 2 Vision+ to help users comply with the FAA’s Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) 0/8326, which restricts unmanned flight around the Washington, DC metropolitan area.
The updated firmware (V3.10) will be released in coming days and adds a No-Fly Zone centered on downtown Washington,
The restriction is part of a planned extension of DJI’s No Fly Zone system that prohibits flight near airports and other locations where flight is restricted by local authorities. These extended no fly zones will include over 10,000 airports registered with the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and will expand no fly zones to ensure they cover the runways at major international airports. DC and extends for a 25 kilometer (15.5 mile) radius in all directions. Phantom pilots in this area will not be able to take off from or fly into this airspace.
http://www.suasnews.com/2015/01/34070/dji-announces-mandatory-firmware-update/
Comments
This DJI employee seems to be saying it's an elective update: "If you do not want to be subject to this new restriction, you may elect not to install the update" (from http://skypixel.org/post/81975172404)
http://www.dji.com/info/news/phantom-2-firmware-update-new-no-fly-z... just says "As with all updates, all users are strongly encouraged to update their firmware immediately"
Is there a source anywhere for the statement that the firmware update is mandatory? I'd like to see what DJI actually said, not someone's interpretation.
@Ahmed: You are wrong. DJI is not imposing or deciding anything. The FRZ is not DJI's idea. It is the law, written by the government (FAA). DJI is merely making their product comply with the law. Which car manufacturers have to do with every vehicle they make as well.
i live in maryland within this nfz. nowhere near downtown dc, nowhere near iad, dca, bwi or afb. so i can't fly in my own backyard? that's total bullshit. it is the job of the countries governing bodies to impose flight restrictions and enforce those restrictions, not the manufacturer. dji doing imposing and enforcing nonetheless is overstepping their bounds.
if i buy a phantom and want to throw it in the washing machine that's my prerogative. i must live with the consequences. if i want to fly it in the drop off lane of terminal a at dca, that's my prerogative and i must live with the consequences. what if audi put a limit on the a8 to go no faster than 65 mph?
i'm so glad i never drank the dji kool aid.
Let's not get into the air rights issue. The FAA does not decide the scope of its' authority, the legislative branch does, which is then interpreted by the supreme court. The supreme court has clearly ruled that land owners have airspace rights.
@P2P... courts have MANY times enforced property rights by issuing injunctions and awarding damages to people who's property rights have been violated, which includes airspace.
Anyways, so the DJI is NAZA based? Is there not an opensource firmware for it? Maybe it's time.
That's what I would hope too...
That said ... http://www.multirotorforums.com/threads/another-stupid-response-fro...
Good luck finding a law, law enforcement agency, and court that will apply, arrest, charge, and convict someone for violation of the illusion of personal property air space. Not going to happen.
> Property Owners do own "Air Rights" above there land.
Depends who you ask ... Believe it or not, the FAA doesn't think so ...
" The definition of the national airspace system is anywhere where aircraft can safely navigate. So by definition then, these quadcopters are what have extended the national airspace down to the ground"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/11/18/the-federal-go...
+1, but as an option, on by default. With maybe some warnings if disabled.
Anything else that would require source modification and a build/compile to override would virtually guarantee source forks popping up all over the place. Not a good thing ...
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next