Hi,

could you tell me who is personally, legally accountable in case of drone crash case reported to law enforcement officers, FAA due to known bugs, flaws in Pixhawk flight controller ?

I have followed tens of discussions on this and other forums and questions asked by hobbyists are responded by hobbyists either.

There is no interest on the side of Pixhawk developer/s  from Switzerland

to take active part in such discussions.

The last discussion at DIYDrones

and history from

https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/drones-discuss/iZmeopHOLGM/discussion

are good examples how hobbyists try to response to problems asked by hobbyists and just fail, since such questions should be responded by genuine

developer/s of Pixhawk originating from the Switzerland.

GPS is used...

No GPS isn't used...

I am surprised to learn GPS is used..

I have been surprised ..

Views: 3452

Replies to This Discussion

Well thats false because you can't disclaim legal liability so those terms are null and void.  This is much the same as owning a car.  The driver/pilot is responsible for maintenance and safe use but the manufacturer CAN be held responsible for defects or negligence.

The fact is though most of these flyaways are pilot error in not calibrating, setting home position, understanding orientation or using the failsafes correctly. You would have an uphill struggle proving that an accident was not down to your own carelessness when you've been warned they arn't suitable to fly near people or buildings.

What you are trying is finding a way to make a buck or two from the drone industry and the users. If you are really concern the safety, please contact AMA, they are in the R/C business for much much longer time than drone which is the latest addition to R/C. Which was good for R/C should be good for the drone.

BTW automobile has been around very long time now, can you name one that is perfectly safe? same for any other man made objects, drone carries certain risk. That said, I don't see it is riskier than gun. Why don't you try to make gun more safe.

As much as I disagree with Jack, I do believe he has the right to post (evem with his hidden agenda or twisted view of the drone safety issue).

US first amendment rants the freedom of speech to every one. So we have to put up with people like Jack and Donald Trump making noise.

@Ben,

thank you for your comments

"

You would have an uphill struggle proving that an accident was not down to your own carelessness when you've been warned they arn't suitable to fly near people or buildings."

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51362

from

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2016/03/16/senate-bill-could...

"

The bill states: “it shall be unlawful for any person to introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any unmanned aircraft manufactured on or after the date that the [FAA] adopts a relevant [manufacturing] standard, unless the manufacturer has received approval …for each make and model.”  In order to receive approval, the bill sets forth steps that would be difficult for large manufacturers to meet, let alone small businesses or individuals.  In order to receive manufacturing approval, the drone maker would, among other things, have to meet safety standards developed through a consensus process with government, industry and “community-based aviation organizations”, which would include presumably the Academy of Model Aeronautics. A manufacturer – regardless of size – would at a minimum have to provide “the aircraft’s operating instructions” and confirm that the drone met the specified standards.  In addition, the drone manufacturer would have to provide a sample of every make and model to the FAA for its approval.

"

The above Bill sensed my superstition, telepathy and precognition already in December 2016, on enacting personal drone registration legislation.

The above Bill if made into law, can close activities of DIYDrones hobbyists like us.

And yet again you show your supreme lack of comprehension of what you are reading.

I have read this legislation, and it says absolutely NOTHING about model aviation.  In fact, this legislation is aimed squarely at the COMMERCIAL USE OF UAVs.  

The words "interstate commerce" should have given you a clue.

On the other hand, there is a house bill pending that example small drone from FAA

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bill-that-exempts-small-consumer-d...

 With the current political environment, what are the chances that these bills becoming law.

Again, this applies to COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT:  "The rule would exempt drones under 4.4 pounds from upcoming FAA commercial drone regulations, meaning anyone could fly a drone for any purpose, so long as it’s under the weight limit." (Emphasis mine....)

The bill said  anyone could fly a drone for any purpose, so long as it’s under the weight limit. It did not exclude drone for non-commercial purpose.

Exactly

"

Take responsibilities for your actions."

Never take responsibilities for hardware parts manufactured by third parties.

Never take responsibilities for the firmware, you didn't code.

I give up.  People like you are bound and determined to find a boogeyman under your bed, and I've got better things to do with my time than to play your childish games.

firmare and software both are computer instructions. When your PC crash, can you sue your software developer, 

Now would you like to restate your position regarding firmware

The human pilot is responsible, end of discussion.

RSS

© 2019   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service