Firmware Update Removes Geofencing From DJI Drones

China-based drone manufacturer DJI announced Monday that the latest firmware update to its “GEO” geofencing system reclassifies Restricted Zones (aka No Fly Zones) as Enhanced Warning Zones. The change means that drone operators are now responsible for monitoring their aircraft to ensure they do not encroach on FAA-designated flight restriction areas, as opposed to the automatic GPS-derived “fencing” that would not allow the drone to enter the restricted airspace. DJI said the changes align with similar changes implemented last year in Europe, and place “control back in the hands of the drone operators, in line with regulatory principles of the operator bearing final responsibility.”


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/under-threat-of-u-s-ban-dji-takes-action

Wow! DJI ditching geofencing feels like they’re throwing caution to the wind. Geofencing was like a safety net, stopping drones from flying where they shouldn’t, like near airports or during emergencies. Now, they’re putting the ball entirely in the operator’s court, saying, “It’s your problem, not ours.”

This change comes right after a DJI drone collided with a firefighting plane in Los Angeles—talk about bad timing. DJI claims it’s about keeping up with regulations and giving users more control, but it seems more like they’re passing the buck. Without geofencing, it’s easier for reckless or clueless operators to mess up, putting people and DJI’s reputation at risk.

With the U.S. already cracking down on DJI, this move might be shooting themselves in the foot. Customers expect companies to step up to the plate on safety, not backpedal when it matters most. This could end up being a PR nightmare for DJI, and it’s hard not to see it as irresponsible.

A simple (and at first look) somewhat smart move to avoid liability. DJI knows that both, geofencing and altitude restrictions have been hacked and disabled due to software vulnerabilities and exploits. They’ll still collect and store the data, so with the right legal tools applied, they will be sharing what Joe Schmuck did with their toy. Ofc, when the goal is to avoid culpability and liability, no such data was/ is ever collected… :wink:

DJI wants to sell a product and learns, that any effort to make it criminal- or idiot-proof will not solve for X, but instead creates a bigger idiot/ criminal.

Here, we are able to watch corporate greed and political hypocrisy in action - in broad daylight and for everyone to see.

I hope gun, car, motorcycle and aircraft manufacturers as well as advocates for a change in Right Of Way rules or special treatment of non-ADSB equipped aircraft watch with wide open eyes. Pandorras Box is wide open, at least from a legal perspective and very stinky worms are beginning to crawl out of it.

Tell me again, why Remington or Ruger, Cessna or Icon - or the manufacturer of any chemical, device or thing under gods sun - capable of inflicting harm- should share liability with a user, who intentionally or unintentionally fails to use the product as intended?

This ain’t how balance works, folks.
Its high time some of the best paid legal Pinguins in Congress, Senate and from the legal world to declare this whole liability topic a matter of national security.

Additionally, its time to think about liability-reform. :wink:

Why did the FAA feel the need to bend over backward to appease the fostering of drone operations? Rules were drafted at relatively lightning speed while we still have ATC light guns in an era of ubiquitous cell phones? There is no 2nd Amendment for drone possession. Regulate and tax drone operations -it’s what our government does best.

I would be in favor of banning drones completely. The RC model folks for the most part follow the rules of common sense and I have no issue with them… but drones are a hazard to aircraft, property, and privacy. I don’t mind first responders using them (and they can be life-savers when used in that manner), but they are a nuisance and hazard when used by the general public.

Just a wish… I know that won’t ever happen and drones are only going proliferate. The intelligent drone operator to drone ratio will approach zero as a limit, unfortunately.

…several things: One, I fly DJI drones; an Inspire 1 and a Mini 3. The drone that hit the tanker was a Mini 3. It’s designed and built, at 249 grams, to be under the 250-gram limit for unidentified drones. The drone in the photograph is a Mini 3. Two, it’s not a matter of going to court to get the past flight data from the manufacturer, it will all be in the SD card in the aft end of the drone. Three, modifying the control software to override the altitude/location prohibitions is not difficult, nor is it DJIs fault when some idiot nerd decides to do so. You want to get to the real root cause of this accident? It’s greed, pure and simple. Someone somewhere most likely offered this maggot thousands (if not tens of thousands) if he could get photographs of, in all likelihood, a celebrity’s burned-out house so they could publish or broadcast it. Rags like the Enquirer and their ilk, and broadcast crap like TMZ are among the highest paying outlets out there for that kind of “journalism” so if you want to blame someone (in addition to whoever was flying the drone) blame them.

Some of the “RC model folks” who fly at the same FAA designated area I fly at are flying two-to-ten-pound miniature replicas of jet fighters at speeds over 80 mph. I’ve watched them climb vertically far beyond the 400-feet my legal drones are limited to. Because of their “rules” none of them have remote ID transmitters. A significant number of them are FPV (first person video) capable, as well, which means there is a camera and video transmitter on board. As for the safety quotient within the “RC model folks”, I have to take exception to that as well. Last Sunday a three pound RC helicopter ran into someone who’d just placed their RC aircraft on the “runway.” The impact was hard enough to knock a 250+ pound man off his feet, and the main rotor left 3 deep cuts on his forearm. The ambulance crew said he was lucky to have not bled out. Next time you turn on a television and see everything from an ad for your local car dealer that looks like it was shot by a helicopter, or an overhead video that drops down between a couple trees, you’re looking at drone video. The reason for that is simple: 4K and better cameras and lenses hoisted by drones and economics. A Bell 206 with a gyro stabilized mount is going to cost a production company many thousands per hour; a good drone with an experienced DP working it, a lot less for a lot more footage.

Lets keep that in mind for future lawsuits and liability claims against: see above. I own a Mini3 Pro. Fact of the matter is, DJI just disabled a safety & control feature on millions of devices and left the table of collaboration. Cash in, then throw the towel and get the heck out of Dodge.

Meanwhile, since typing this comment below, my LinkedIn got several hits out of the PRC. Not my usual “audience”… :laughing:

Before this stunt, not everyone was capable of, or surrounded by people who could hack it, now they won’t need to. I’ll leave the legal definition of what that may be called, up to the professer’s of law.

People seem to have issues with following regulations, laws and codes. We already know that they can’t responsibly handle guns, cars, motorcycles, alcohol, tobacco… [insert activity here].

Unless we know that the clown who operated this device into the pathway of a air tanker was paid for this activity, we are guessing.

Most older semesters ought to be staring to Washington D.C. and the various European regulators to solve the misery. Joe Schmuck won’t.

Presumably, DJI feels pushing to shift from the current reliance on geofencing to the EU-supported geocaging initiative will pay off in reduced liability for misuse of their product. Whether or not this will prove correct is anyone’s guess, but it’s hard to fault any manufacturer for trying.

Liability once was determined by direct responsibility for the act. I guess I’m just totally out of phase with modern society, but I wish we’d go back to that standard.

I agree with all of you guys above comments. however, I think that you’re missing the core of the problem. If there wasn’t a market for these videos meaning selling to the rag papers, etc., who only cater to the general public who stupidly wants to see these videos so who’s to blame here it’s all about following the money and who pays the money is the general population who just soaks up this horrible horrible stuff that they print in these rag papers
Once again, if there’s not a market for something then it does not prosper…
Don’t get me going on the fentanyl problem, crossing the border because once again, if there wasn’t a market for it in the US, they would not be trafficking it across the border

Irresponsible, maybe, Raf, but hardly surprising. The same guy who used to sell you inexpensive crack has just offered you a real bargain on heroin. Wonder if the embedded software in a DJI would be capable of uploading all its data to an “remote diagnostic” site somewhere else.

Sometimes, bad actors are more clever than your paranoia …

1 Like

This change comes right after a DJI drone collided with a firefighting plane in Los Angeles—talk about bad timing.

Does anyone know if the emergency area was, in fact, geofenced? I read somewhere that one of the problems with emergency geofencing was that the ever changing perimeter of the affected area meant an ever changing fence.

Every vehicle, (car, boat, plane) occupied or remote has an Operator. The Operator should be the one tracked. That individual should be held fully responsible for whatever that vehicle does while they’re operating it.

If every Operator then is being tracked by an ADS-b or transponder type unit while the vehicle is underway then the folks enforcing the rules and laws can direct their focus on the Operator. Most of these problems with rogue drones in the wrong place will end.

The more automation is used in all forms of transportation the more we most remind ourselves that there’s still One Individual responsible for each and every moving vehicle. Can’t blame anything on the inanimate object and A.I… Only a human is responsible for that moving object. If the operator trust AI enough to neglect their responsibility, they are still criminally responsible for the actions of the automation’s actions.

Sorry, AI put you in prison. Be careful who or WHAT you Trust.

It is unclear if geofencing for the area was active at the time. Geofencing depends on manufacturers (DJI) updating restricted zones based on FAA data, which can be delayed or affected by dynamic conditions. However, the drone operator flew in restricted airspace (TFR), violating FAA regulations, regardless of geofencing status. More shall be revealed.

This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.