DJI relies on users to fly their drones safely, and it’s just as bad an idea as it sounds
I don’t trust you. I like you and I want to share my technical knowledge with you, but when it comes to something like flying a drone, I just don’t trust that any random drone owner will follow the basic rules of flight safety.
But I’m not DJI, the the world’s number one drone maker. Arguably the creator of the best drones in the world (the Flyers top our list of the best drones and warrant their own list). best list), DJI made it clear this week that it fully trusts its drone customers to steer their drones away from sensitive areas such as prisons, airports and national monuments.
These so-called no-fly zones are currently GEO-encoded in DJI drones, meaning the flying cameras automatically stay out of the way. At least in the US they did. Last year, DJI disabled these controls in the European Union, and now the US is following suit
Flying blind
In a blog update posted this weekthe company has officially switched its ‘Restricted Zones (or No Fly Zones)’ to Enhanced Warning Zones. Instead of stopping the drones from automatically flying into an airport, you’ll get a warning that you’re flying into restricted airspace and, as DJI says, the company is “putting control back in the hands of the drone operators, in line with the regulatory principles of the operator who has ultimate responsibility.”
DJI offers many reasons, including the emergence of a strong regulatory structure for drones that did not exist when DJI first started selling its quadcopters in the US more than a decade ago. That’s right, there are a lot of rules, but they are somewhat inconsistent.
For a time, the FAA required anyone flying a drone of virtually any size (250 grams to 55 lbs) to obtain a drone registration (slightly less stringent than a license). The The FAA rule was eventually lifted so that the majority of small prosumer drones no longer require registration.
I regretted this change because the light registration process taught new pilots about the rules of the road (air). For example, they were not allowed to fly above 120 meters, so as not to hinder aircraft, and they were not supposed to fly in certain zones, including airports.
I took these lessons seriously, but also appreciated that DJI technology supported me and kept me from flying where I shouldn’t. The registration also provided a level of accountability. Your registration number was supposed to be stamped somewhere on your drone so that the faulty device could be traced back to the careless pilot if it was found somewhere it wasn’t supposed to be flying.
With popularity comes responsibility
The appeal of a DJI drone is great: who wouldn’t want to fly a drone? Few companies have a comparable track record within one category. I’ve flown countless DJI drones over the years and can’t name a single guy.
The drone maker has been in serious trouble in recent years. We have the new Avata 2, a fantastic FPV drone that puts you in the driver’s seat of the drone to capture incredible fly-through videos. There’s the new 3-camera Mavic Pro 3, which is perhaps the ultimate prosumer drone, and now the recently released entry-level DJI Flip which, when folded, looks unlike anything DJI has ever produced.
My point is that DJI has a drone for every taste and flying style. It appeals to an incredibly broad group of consumers. But not every buyer has flown a drone before or understands how to prevent them from becoming unintended weapons of minor destruction.
Do you think I’m exaggerating? Large numbers have been reported flying over the flight path of landing and departing commercial aircraft. Even more worrying is what happened when a drone was in the way from one of the planes delivering life-saving water from a lake to the Fires in Los Angeles. LA had to ground those planes until they figured out what was going on.
I doubt the drone pilot was attempting to damage the aircraft or disrupt fire control efforts. They probably wanted the great video the drone could take. But drones in the hands of amateurs have no place in such situations, and yet I think DJI’s decision will only make such situations more likely.
A looming private no-fly rule
When I think about DJI’s decision, I have to take into account its somewhat weak position in the US market. Despite its success, DJI has been the target of a possible US ban for more than a year. It was briefly included in a bill to restrict certain technology and goods, the Countering CCP Drones Act, because as a Chinese company there are concerns that the Chinese government could use DJI technology to spy on American interests. While DJI managed to avoid a ban, the company still must prove to the US government that its technology does not pose a national security risk.
DJI has fought these accusations from the beginning, but I almost feel like this new decision is a bit of passive aggression. Yes, DJI has made the same change in the EU, but it seems like a particularly bad idea to do this now in the US, especially now that we are dealing with a change in executive management.
Unless DJI was supposed to say, “We supported basic drone safety. Look what it’s like when we don’t.”
It’s hard to imagine the decision here will find favor with U.S. lawmakers. Meanwhile, the software update took effect on January 13, 2025, meaning our skies are already a Wild West and less safe than last year. It’s entirely possible that we’ll soon see all kinds of DJI drones flying around airports, the Statue of Liberty, the U.S. Capitol, and other high-value locations.
I have no problem with licensed professionals flying these locations because they have arranged flights with officials. It’s those other amateurs who fly drones, with a flight range of 8 to 13 kilometers, that send them buzzing into your territory. We don’t have to swat DJI drones away like so many flies.
I love DJI drones and I love you, dear drone enthusiast readers, but right now I’m struggling with confidence on two fronts.