The more I think about this, the more angry I get. I feel like Yuneec is misrepresenting their product. How is it possible that they are able to restrict the use of a consumer product? We wouldn't buy a car that was restricted to the speed limit; we wouldn't buy an airplane that could only fly in certain areas, we wouldn't buy a home theater receiver that wouldn't exceed a certain volume, and the list goes on and on. The responsibility of the use of a product is ALWAYS in the hands of the end user. If I bought a plane from Cessna, and then flew it into restricted airspace, I couldn't turn around and sue Cessna because they didn't set up a geofence. If someone buys a Yuneec product and then does something stupid with it, LE isn't going to go after Yuneec, they are going to prosecute the end user. I understand that Yuneec wants to be responsible, but we all can't get FAA 333 exemptions to be able to get the necessary firmware to remove the no fly zone restriction. If I had known about this, I wouldn't have bought the Q500. I'm surprised there isn't a class action lawsuit against Yuneec. There probably will be eventually. Most all makers of this class of UAV are doing this. It will be in all future makes. DJI has had it along with 3DR for some time. DJI just made there NFZ's self-certifying if you opt out of it by signing off on it. It is the future unfortunately. With a growing, developing product like UAV's it is inevitable that these rules would come into play. To many people with more money than brains as I like to say. The more I think about this, the more angry I get. I feel like Yuneec is misrepresenting their product. How is it possible that they are able to restrict the use of a consumer product? We wouldn't buy a car that was restricted to the speed limit; we wouldn't buy an airplane that could only fly in certain areas, we wouldn't buy a home theater receiver that wouldn't exceed a certain volume, and the list goes on and on. The responsibility of the use of a product is ALWAYS in the hands of the end user. If I bought a plane from Cessna, and then flew it into restricted airspace, I couldn't turn around and sue Cessna because they didn't set up a geofence. If someone buys a Yuneec product and then does something stupid with it, LE isn't going to go after Yuneec, they are going to prosecute the end user. I understand that Yuneec wants to be responsible, but we all can't get FAA 333 exemptions to be able to get the necessary firmware to remove the no fly zone restriction. If I had known about this, I wouldn't have bought the Q500. I'm surprised there isn't a class action lawsuit against Yuneec. There probably will be eventually. I put a deposit on a new typhoon H, but will probably cancel because of this. Maybe have a pop up warning that can be just clicked off, like a GPS that says don't program while driving. If DJI has an easy out, I will unfortunately have to go with them. It's not that I plan on doing anything stupid, just want to make my own decisions. I put a deposit on a new typhoon H, but will probably cancel because of this. Maybe have a pop up warning that can be just clicked off, like a GPS that says don't program while driving. If DJI has an easy out, I will unfortunately have to go with them. It's not that I plan on doing anything stupid, just want to make my own decisions. IMO, Yuneec's approach to NFZ is benign in comparison and significantly less intrusive than DJI's. Current implementations of DJI's GEO system encompass a more extensive list of areas where limitations are in place. In general, not unless there is a specific reason to. In the event of an aviation safety or law enforcement investigation that compels us to disclose information, our verification partner may provide information about the credit card or mobile phone number used to verify the DJI account that unlocked an Authorization Zone at the location, date, and time in question. This creates a path to accountability in the event of an incident without requiring burdensome up-front collection of personal information, and we feel strikes the right balance at this time. Our observation is that the vast, vast majority of aerial system operators are responsible community citizens who follow the rules as well as common sense, and therefore it is only necessary to create an accountability mechanism when the operation occurs in a location that raises an aviation safety or security concern. We think our customers deserve the benefit of the doubt, and an accountability system that is minimally invasive. As much as I like the quality of their offerings, these were the main reasons for me to abandon their ecosystem and pursue other alternatives. It's all about sharing. Perhaps a better understanding of
