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: 3444

Replies to This Discussion

You chose to use the firmware, and you chose to use the hardware. You chose to put the aircraft in a position where someone somewhere cares if it crashes enough to take you to court.

You can LIMIT the risk by purchasing aircraft grade products but not many people have the money to pay $100,000 to $1000,000 USD per airframe.

It is clear you don't wish to take responsibility for your actions or decisions. Please please please don't use Arducopter (or drive a car for that matter). We clearly state that you are responsible for ensuring your aircraft is airworthy and that you are responsible for ensuring the code setup properly and is used in a safe manner. We even provide all the code so you are able to check it yourself.

The arducopter devs give you everything you need to ensure the code is bug free and perfect in every way and could never cause you to crash. If it causes you to crash you obviously haven't checked it thoroughly. That is only your fault.

I don't care what you do provided you don't use Arducopter.

And if he created is own website or forum to push his agenda i doubt anyone here would care, or even if he started some misguided crusade on rcgroups or anywhere else, then whatever.  The problem is he trolls large numbers of conversations, ideas, blog posts or posts for help with his insane drivel, essentially shutting down or compromising a significant chunk of activity on this website/forum.   One person is having a significant negative impact.  I completely agree everyone should have a right to post (although I would like to think this site is international enough that we're not bound by the US constitution) but in this situation i do believe he should be kept in check before he does lasting damage, which I believe is at least part of his agenda.  I struggle to believe that anyone can be as beligerent or ignorant as he appears.

I don't see the analogy with owning a car.  This post is about the 'Pixhawk flight controller' and the swiss developers (who aren't manufacturers).  This is a piece of hardware, a computer.   Trying to place blame or liability on a piece of hardware is like trying to blame a PC for someone's health problem if a piece of medical software goes wrong in a hospital. Lots of cars (in fact probably every car ever produced) have known problems, some of which cause expensive and catastrophic failure, but unless the fault is an ongoing danger to the public or the owner - like a faulty steering column - then they are dealt with on a commercial basis and mostly not at all, not a regulatory or liability basis.

Further, the pixhawk is an open source project and the swiss developers are an academic institution, producing this project for research.   3DR produce a commercial implementation that we're familiar with and they've been very good at replacing any of the small number of hardware/manufacturing faults but apart from those it's been outstandingly reliable hardware.

The software (firmware) that runs on the pixhawk is varied - it runs at least px4, apm/ardupilot and paparazzi software stacks, possibly more.  Again, these are all opensource community/research projects.  Even if we extend the OPs intention to the software APM stack, well good luck trying to invoke liability on a piece of opensource community software from a website called 'DIY Drones'.  There is no sale or contract involved for a start, this is something that you freely download for your own benefit - there's not a sane lawyer alive who would try to sue one of the opensource contributors here if your drone crashes.  If you don't like it, or trust it then you're free to find another alternative - if you want legal liability then buy a full commercial UAV solution.  If we do extend this to the software stack then we also have to extend it to the myriad of hardware platforms it runs on.

And this all assumes that there was a genuine question at the start.  There wasn't.  This was, as usual, the idiotic narcissistic ramblings of The Troll aka Darius Jack, who constantly and consistently hijacks posts to push his own agenda - his hairbrained schemes to fix his invented syndromes.  He has now specifically stated his agenda behind this particular post, which is to create a global scheme to (produce?) certify every drone part for every drone manufacturer in every country and no other parts should be permitted.

Come to think of it, the analogy of Donald Trump is actually a good one.

Hey!

Don't insult knobs that way!

What type of sUAS do you fly and own.  Just curious.

WHAT?  Everyone knows trolls don't have time to actually do anything other than troll !

Darius, You are legally accountable for al that fly!

I smell paid DJI troll.


But don't worry. DJI still have a long way to go with their over hyped Phantom 4 visual object avoidance as beautifully demonstrated by Casey Neistat in NYC city.



RSS

© 2019   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service