DJI claims its decision to let drones fly in dangerous areas is not political

DJI is no longer preventing drones from flying over airports, wildfires and the White HousePassing the buck to US law enforcement to prevent some of the worst forms of drone misuse. Some suggest that the curious timing of this decision is political, coming just days before the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump, weeks later. New Jersey’s drone hysteriaand days later a plane fighting the LA fires was shot down from a DJI drone. Some even suggest that this is China disappearing into the United States for orchestration the ban on TikTokthat seems like a stretch to me.

However, DJI is now reacting to the whole vibe with an official blog post who says the timing is a coincidence.

“We planned to roll out this update in the US months ago, but delayed the implementation to ensure that the update works properly,” reads the company’s unsigned blog.

It also states, in bold letters, that “Policy does not drive security decisions at DJI.”

“To suggest that this update is related to the current political environment in the United States is not only false, but also dangerous,” writes the unnamed author of DJI.

While the post contains a variety of additional details about what is and isn’t happening with the company’s geofencing system, it doesn’t dispute that DJI has removed the feature that prevents most American drone pilots, by default, to fly over. airports, power plants, active fires, military bases and government buildings such as the White House, apparently without exception.

If politics didn’t drive that decision, what did? The blog post doesn’t say it well. While he promises to offer “the real reasons for this update”, he goes on to suggest generically that DJI has aligned himself with aviation regulators around “the principle of operator responsibility” and, on a minor note, points out that its No Fly Zones created. “Missed opportunities, delayed operations, or unnecessary waiting times” for pilots.

“This was particularly challenging for commercial operators, drone companies – and most critically – public safety agencies performing rescue work, where delays are simply unacceptable,” writes DJI.

It is true that DJI’s geofencing system was created voluntarily by DJI and is not mandated by US regulators. “The FAA does not require geofencing from drone manufacturers,” FAA spokesman Ian Gregor said. The Virgin.

But does removing hard geofencing make us safer, and did it cost DJI anything to keep it in place? We asked DJI the following questions:

• If politics did not drive this decision, what did?
• Have US regulators or representatives asked DJI to remove No Fly Zones?
• Was there a financial benefit to DJI in removing them, or an opportunity cost that DJI was paying to keep them?
• Was DJI technologically unable to update their GEO system with official FAA data while maintaining No Fly Zones?
• The blog post suggests that public safety agencies have experienced delays in unlocking – are there specific cases where delays in unlocking DJI have resulted in specific impacts to rescue work?
• How will removing No Fly Zones make drones safer?

We will let you know how DJI responds.

Although this decision has nothing to do with China, the company has very strong reasons to be on the radar of US regulators now – is currently facing a total ban on the importation of its drones and cameras into the United Statesuntil “an appropriate national security agency” publicly declares that its products do not pose an unacceptable national security risk.

Perhaps this move helps highlight how DJI voluntarily made its drones less of a national security risk by keeping them away from important structures. Maybe DJI executives believe that the US will only understand that once they get the feature.