We need centralised servers delivering all the
no-fly zone data to us that everyone can access for the whole of Europe.
The world’s largest consumer drone manufacturer DJI is calling for Europe to work together and collectively send data on no-fly zones and flight restrictions to a centralised database in order to improve unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) safety.
“The biggest obstacle in drone regulation in Europe is that there is no harmonisation between the countries. People bring our products on holiday with them, when they go skiing in the Alps for example, but they need to know about temporary flight restrictions,” DJI’s European policy lead Christian Struwe told IBTimes UK.
“We have geofencing in place but at the moment it is not flexible. For every single restricted area in our system in the world, we receive complaints from tens of companies claiming they have been given authorisation to fly in that area, but how do we judge who is allowed to give the authorisation?” asked Struwe.
“We need centralised servers delivering all the no-fly zone data to us that everyone can access for the whole of Europe. Neither our partners or competitors currently have the data for their geofencing solutions either.”
Once in awhile people ask me why I do this. Every week brings another reason
Look at this headline. Think about it. DJI, a bunch of technocrats, are looking to avoid punitive regulations that would damage the market for their products. So they offer up their geofencing solution and then ask every country in Europe to support it with a standardized data set so as not to inconvenience their customers.
That means agreed upon fields, a polylingual interface and all the rest. Who is to pay to build it? Doesn’t say. Who would be responsible for maintaining it and ensuring the accuracy of the data? Certainly not DJI.
Words like brash and bold and ballsy leap to mind. It’s the same kind of blind faith in the evolution of technology that was being talked up at RISE in Hong Kong recently.
Now let’s consider the problem from a different perspective, Joseph Del Balzo’s article this week about the FAA in which he provides 30 reasons that the FAA is the way it is and assumedly is in no hurry to change.
To which I added that what we are seeing is a collision between the measured pace of aviation regulation (not just in the US) and technologists used to disrupting massive industries in less time than it takes the FAA to draft a rule.
It is this contrast, this view of society adjusting and changing that I find so fascinating. And why I do this.