Can DJI USA take the lead on this issue?

[gtranquilla]

While FAA does not have legal jurisdiction beyond USA borders, FAA regulations remain a cornerstone for pending regulations in other countries that tend to wait then follow suit with similar regulations. DJI and others need to realize the potential adverse impact on their business in all 1st world countries.

FPV flying c/w googles has been an ongoing activity for several years without issue. The issue began to surface as a result of MRs unleased on to the public by means of the easier to fly VTOL RC aircraft..... more specifically Multirotors with DJI Innovations at the forefront.

Had this issue been handled proactively from the beginning by issuing a Safety Code with every product sold, and strict warnings to the hobby shops and MRF distributors and resellers, their might be less of a setback today with respect to FAA regulations against FPV flying with goggles.

IMHO - Getting this situation back under control with the FAA might be a task best suited to be handled by DJI International in conjunction with DJI - USA, but with strong community support by others including MRF.

 

[...guest...]

You mean the same DJI that can't be bothered to answer even the simplest questions about their flight controllers? The DJI that may have royally screwed their own US rep? That DJI? </sarcasm>

 

[Bartman]

While FAA does not have legal jurisdiction beyond USA borders, FAA regulations remain a cornerstone for pending regulations in other countries that tend to wait then follow suit with similar regulations. DJI and others need to realize the potential adverse impact on their business in all 1st world countries.

FPV flying c/w googles has been an ongoing activity for several years without issue. The issue began to surface as a result of MRs unleased on to the public by means of the easier to fly VTOL RC aircraft..... more specifically Multirotors with DJI Innovations at the forefront.

Had this issue been handled proactively from the beginning by issuing a Safety Code with every product sold, and strict warnings to the hobby shops and MRF distributors and resellers, their might be less of a setback today with respect to FAA regulations against FPV flying with goggles.

IMHO - Getting this situation back under control with the FAA might be a task best suited to be handled by DJI International in conjunction with DJI - USA, but with strong community support by others including MRF.

graydon,

Team Blacksheep also sent FPV quads into the US en masse and their website is a clearinghouse of info for how to do FPV to great distances. it's a big clusterf**k at this point and i'm at a loss as to what I think ought to be done, who is right, who is wrong, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Old Man]

I doubt DJI will even respond to the situation. The Chinese business model is largely built upon a concept of immediate revenue generation and looks no further than the account balance at the end of the day. Typically they have no regard whatsoever for the purchasing consumer, only the contents of a wallet that can be extracted now. Since all Chinese businesses are government owned at some level there would have to be directive input from the Chinese government to initiate any input into domestic U.S. issues. IMO DJI is not so much an industry leader but a firm that has learned how to effectively package and market product/design concepts obtained from other sources by various means. Meaning unless someone else comes up with an idea they can "borrow" it probably won't happen. We also have to consider that DJI products and targeted consumers have by and large been the avenue that has precipitated the issue we are currently dealing with.

 

[Ronan]

While FAA does not have legal jurisdiction beyond USA borders, FAA regulations remain a cornerstone for pending regulations in other countries that tend to wait then follow suit with similar regulations. DJI and others need to realize the potential adverse impact on their business in all 1st world countries.

Which countries are those? Most of the first world countries have already adapted/created regulations years ago for sUAV, both for hobby and commercial usage.

 

[dazzab]

Short answer. No.

 

[soler]

I doubt DJI will even respond to the situation. The Chinese business model is largely built upon a concept of immediate revenue generation and looks no further than the account balance at the end of the day. Typically they have no regard whatsoever for the purchasing consumer, only the contents of a wallet that can be extracted now. Since all Chinese businesses are government owned at some level there would have to be directive input from the Chinese government to initiate any input into domestic U.S. issues. IMO DJI is not so much an industry leader but a firm that has learned how to effectively package and market product/design concepts obtained from other sources by various means. Meaning unless someone else comes up with an idea they can "borrow" it probably won't happen. We also have to consider that DJI products and targeted consumers have by and large been the avenue that has precipitated the issue we are currently dealing with.

Not to go off topic but I think you need to read up a bit more on Chinese businesses, There are some old state owned companies but most companies are not owned by the government, certainly mine have no government involvement.

I can agree that some business as very short sighted and that customer support in China is by no way the same as it is in the western world.

DJI will only get involved if it starts to hurt there balance sheet, even then it is very unlikely.