Industry News: DJI Mavic Air 2 drone specs leak ahead of the official announcement

Normalnorm

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2012
665
281
Here's a pretty balance analysis of what the FAA is proposing.

You might want to skip to about 2:30-2:40 into it to get to the meat of the presentation.





One problem with this is, that anyone...John Q public that may just plan not like drones, or law enforcement with nothing better to do that day....can harass you even while you are doing something legal.
That happens already.

As for the harshness of the regs, we can thank those who fly recklessly and inconsiderately and those who think they will be used by terrorists. And sure, we can kill people with stones yada, yada, yada, but the fact is that a drone represents a possibly far more scary weapon to many than a stick or stone and we have no Constitutional right to fly a drone.
 

MORphoto.net

EOS R, EOS R
Feb 29, 2020
15
16
Portland, OR, USA
morphoto.net
I would be concerned about buying ANY drone right now....if those proposed FAA rules are passed that they are proposing....
If you're drone doesn't comply to those new more draconian ones that basically insist your drone is at all times connected to the internet to report in to FAA central, you are in non-compliance.

If that passes as proposed, pretty much all drones made till that date are not legal to fly.....it's been a few months since I last read up on that, but wow....

C
Not sure I understand all the details here. I just upgraded my drone to the Mavic 2 Pro and it has remote ID, I can't imagine it is the only one that does. It's the first item in the menus. It doesn't require any data subscription. Just turn it on and enter your registration info etc. I just sold my Mavic Air, so I can't check, but it looks like DJI introduced remote ID over 2 years ago in their app, so I would assume all of them have it. From what I can see it is not a hardware thing. If you are flying a homemade hobby drone for sport etc, then yeah, it should have the same restrictions as model airplanes and helicopters. I don't see anyone flying those in the middle of the city. Let me know if I'm missing something here but I don't see the problem.
 

picperfect

EOS 90D
Mar 29, 2020
112
92
If people are flying over me or my family I don't care,
I do. Seriously. For all of the following reasons:

1. Why should I accept an unnecessary risk of getting injured - on top of all existing risks - without any fault of mine and without getting any benefit from the activity myself? Even if the risk may be small, it is a risk. It can easily and totally be avoided if the activity causing the risk is outlawed = ban to fly over any people.

2. If it is directly or near overhead my own property - house, apartement, garden, private land - why should I accept any risks of damage from falling debris? Why should I accept the disturbance and noise? These things mostly fly low and emit extremely annoying, hi-pitch distrubing noise. Basically akin to flying pests. Only disadvantages to non-flyers, zero benefits = not acceptable. legal ban please.

3. potential and real privacy invasion - in public and even more so on private ground. Spying of me, my family, my property from any angle, not normally accessible to humans with their eyes or cameras. Zero benefit for me = not acceptable. Legal ban please.

Anything that does not touch on any of the 3 areas nor on any of the other security concerns (air trafiic etc.) may be permissible, but only under the most restrictive and stringent rules and only for very good reasons = definitely NOT "for recreational use". If they put drones to work as the most effective, best or only feasible method - eg. inspection of bridges, power lines, construction, law enforcement [within narrow limits!] and [commercial] aerial photography [within very narrow limits!] then fine with me. But not anything more.
 

picperfect

EOS 90D
Mar 29, 2020
112
92
Drones capable of carrying a 12-pack are a bit pricey...
Luckily. The "future vision" of gazillions of heavy load drones zipping around overhead 365/24/7 ... delivering darn amazon packages to everybody, their dog and my neighbours ... NO NO NO. Kill it before it is too late.
 

RunAndGun

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 16, 2011
406
81
I do. Seriously. For all of the following reasons:

1. Why should I accept an unnecessary risk of getting injured - on top of all existing risks - without any fault of mine and without getting any benefit from the activity myself? Even if the risk may be small, it is a risk. It can easily and totally be avoided if the activity causing the risk is outlawed = ban to fly over any people.

2. If it is directly or near overhead my own property - house, apartement, garden, private land - why should I accept any risks of damage from falling debris? Why should I accept the disturbance and noise? These things mostly fly low and emit extremely annoying, hi-pitch distrubing noise. Basically akin to flying pests. Only disadvantages to non-flyers, zero benefits = not acceptable. legal ban please.

3. potential and real privacy invasion - in public and even more so on private ground. Spying of me, my family, my property from any angle, not normally accessible to humans with their eyes or cameras. Zero benefit for me = not acceptable. Legal ban please.

Anything that does not touch on any of the 3 areas nor on any of the other security concerns (air trafiic etc.) may be permissible, but only under the most restrictive and stringent rules and only for very good reasons = definitely NOT "for recreational use". If they put drones to work as the most effective, best or only feasible method - eg. inspection of bridges, power lines, construction, law enforcement [within narrow limits!] and [commercial] aerial photography [within very narrow limits!] then fine with me. But not anything more.
1. Why should they let cars, trucks and motorcycles drive around you then? How many hundreds/thousands are hurt and/or killed daily due to no fault of their own by one of these. Ban all motorized vehicles near sidewalks, parks, stores, parking lots and homes. Anyway, there are already rules in place about flying over people/crowds.

2. Okay, yes a drone can fall and cause property damage, but so can limbs, branches and trees. And airplanes and helicopters. Your neighbors tree can fall and crush your car or house and there’s nothing you can do about it but cry and make a claim with your insurance company. As far as noise, yes at low levels you hear them, but 50-100+ feet up and you don’t know it’s there. And at least with mine(Mavic, Mavic 2 pro), the prop noise is not high-pitch. I would know, I’m very sensitive to high-pitch/high frequency sounds. Now does that mean I would want it hovering 10 feet over me all day? No, but in the scheme of things, it’s not a big deal.

3. Yes, that is a very real possibility , although slim. Most people aren‘t buying drones to fly them outside your bedroom window. You could make a similar argument about long telephoto/zoom lenses.

Your post reads like it’s from someone that would accidentally get bumped by someone standing in a line and then start claiming they were assaulted. And I love the attitude of “if it doesn’t benefit me, ban it and make it illegal”.
 
Jan 29, 2020
8
15
On the drone: I think the biggest issue with the Mavic Air (that I have) is the limited range. It is supposed to be approximately 2km, but after 700 meters maximum the signal is already too weak. If this new Air 2 has a real extended range (I don't trust the declared 6 km, but 2/3 would be great) then I'll upgrade.

On drones regulation: here in Europe the situation is even more limited. It is very difficult to find places where to fly.
 

cayenne

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,356
344
That happens already.

As for the harshness of the regs, we can thank those who fly recklessly and inconsiderately and those who think they will be used by terrorists. And sure, we can kill people with stones yada, yada, yada, but the fact is that a drone represents a possibly far more scary weapon to many than a stick or stone and we have no Constitutional right to fly a drone.
Hoping to be only a 'little' pedantic here but...

Please remember the US Constitution does *NOT* grant you rights....you are born with your rights intrinsically.

The US Constitution is there to spell out the limited enumerated powers and responsibilities of the (Fed) Government, again, it does not grant you rights.

The bill of rights and there was debate on this...is there to spell out explicitly rights you already have but emphasizes them....

So, yes, you DO have the right to fly a drone.....unless laws and regulations are passed to say no, or to regulate your ability to do so.

It's a small distinction, but a very important one.

The founders said you are born with your rights endowed upon you from God or whatever higher presence you cling to....but you are born with them, they are not granted from a government or a king or......

HTH,

cayenne
 

picperfect

EOS 90D
Mar 29, 2020
112
92
Your post reads like it’s from someone that would accidentally get bumped by someone standing in a line and then start claiming they were assaulted. And I love the attitude of “if it doesn’t benefit me, ban it and make it illegal”.
Main issue: drones bring new, *additional nuisance, riska and dangers* on top of the many already existing nuisances and dangers. Why should I - and overwhelming majority of non drone-operators - put up with that? No upside for us, but lots of downsides. So, ban.
 

Fischer

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 17, 2020
63
40
Better, cheaper, safer than what I have. Still very happy I got a drone early, so I could actually fly it around. Have some super cool urban footage. Don't think I'll be upgrading any time soon with all the current restrictions. :cool:
 

cayenne

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,356
344
Better, cheaper, safer than what I have. Still very happy I got a drone early, so I could actually fly it around. Have some super cool urban footage. Don't think I'll be upgrading any time soon with all the current restrictions. :cool:
The problem is...don't get caught flying your old non-compliant one in the not too distant future....

The penalties are getting stiffer too I do believe.....
 

Fischer

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 17, 2020
63
40
The problem is...don't get caught flying your old non-compliant one in the not too distant future....

The penalties are getting stiffer too I do believe.....
I more or less gave up on regulation - only use it in remote places.
 

Normalnorm

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2012
665
281
Hoping to be only a 'little' pedantic here but...

Please remember the US Constitution does *NOT* grant you rights....you are born with your rights intrinsically.

The US Constitution is there to spell out the limited enumerated powers and responsibilities of the (Fed) Government, again, it does not grant you rights.

The bill of rights and there was debate on this...is there to spell out explicitly rights you already have but emphasizes them....

So, yes, you DO have the right to fly a drone.....unless laws and regulations are passed to say no, or to regulate your ability to do so.

It's a small distinction, but a very important one.

The founders said you are born with your rights endowed upon you from God or whatever higher presence you cling to....but you are born with them, they are not granted from a government or a king or......

HTH,

cayenne
Well, I shall amend my comment to read "You have no Constitutional protection limiting the power of government to regulate drone use. Similar to the regulation of automobile use."
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,622
1,479
Well, I shall amend my comment to read "You have no Constitutional protection limiting the power of government to regulate drone use. Similar to the regulation of automobile use."
Well, maybe not even that. The Ninth Amendment basically says, "These aren't all the rights."

When originally enacted, however, the Bill of Rights was conceived as only applying to the Federal government--so on that basis the states can indeed regulate autombile use--constitutionally--regardless of how much you stretch the ninth amendment. (Two or three of the states, for instance, continued to have an established church after the Bill of Rights was passed--and in spite of the establishment clause.)

After the 14th amendment was passed, the Supreme Court interpreted it as allowing the bill of rights to be applied to the states; periodically they "incorporate" one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, meaning it applies to the states as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Normalnorm