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 ..
Replies
The human pilot is responsible, end of discussion.
Darius Jack is responsible for most drone crashes... On a more personal note, Darius, I don't like the person you choose to be. :) I await your response most anxiously...that is...unless you've been banned which would be awesome - I tire of you de-railing good discussions.
Also, 'seems like this may not be the first discussion board this clown's been banned from?
http://www.developers.meethue.com/content/how-post-question-everyhue
As an industrial software and R+D engineer the answer is simple although the problem is far from simple.
The individual who assembles and operates the aircraft/ Drone/ RC model is primarily responsible for any damage or injury that is caused to a third party. That's why we have insurance.
That is why it is important to operate in a safe way and away from persons and property "in case" there is an unknown issue.
If there is a known issue with a controller or aircraft setup and you ignore that issue then YOU accept the risk.
I you can PROVE negligence then YOU have a claim against the manufacturer or supplier.
If you cannot prove negligence then its your problem.
What needs to be done to address this is an independent and skilled organisation that is capable of interpreting the log data and aircraft design or assembly to give a credible version of the accident taking into account the weather, flying conditions, construction, statements etc.
That should not be the Police OR the FAA.
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.
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.
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
I worked on SAE J1939 from implementing the CAN bus on Motorola 68HC11 to building prototype sprayery with 6 network node uses a very small sub set of J1939 like commands that was used to make a commercial machine. When we tried to introduce wireless links the error rate was too high to use in a determinate system that depended on each command being acted on. Getting it done in a timely manner took a special network chip on every CPU. Every process of any consequence took its own CPU. The sprayer read 4 single pixel camera viewing an area 50 mm long x 1 meter wide that with its own CPU that sent the data through an interface CPU to a main CPU that tracked the rated of speed calculated the amount of product to spray on each 1 m x m area could set 4 spray nozzles a 1 of 16 rates and trigger them on when over the area.
When we tried to use radio links for a small part of this it fail every times due to too many lost packets.
I also built several vehicle tracking systems one parameter in each and every messages the time stamp so every node knew how old the message was by comparing it the clock form their own GPS. Some messages were sent 20 or 30 times before the were acknowledged. Radio contort should have better connectivity that than UDP packet radio, but noise, multi-path, etc will cause signal loss.
The most reliable drone missions will be preplanned and flown on auto pilot with pilot oversight.
The operating pilot is responsible for the whole ball of wax. He is the one that decides if the drone is safe to fly. If the mission is correct and safe. The pilot is the one that decides when to quit.
Looking a causes for airplane accidents: http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm Only weather and mechanical failure take any fault off pilot error. Considering the close proximity of drone and the pilots it's very hard for the weather to damage a plane before the pilot can get it out of the air. Pilots are very often the sole people working on their drones turning mechanical failures into mostly pilot error.
No matter how well the drone is certified when the drone the ground or the the Cadillac the guy at the stick is likely going to get stuck,
Darius;
This is our groups hobby.we enjoy DIY and We want to have fun flying our Drones.
Can You please stop the negativity and just start having fun in our hobby.
Thank You..
I had a good laugh at this but I would like to provide a serious answer.
Any drone you fly should be flown as if it can fall out of the sky at any time. Regulations in most countries are based on that principle. It doesn't matter what autopilot or manufacture you are using.
I personally fly with a kill switch so I can terminate my flight at any time. To ensure safe operation I simply need to stay within line of sight and not fly over people or property that could be damaged if I pull the kill switch. This simple principle reduces the likelihood that I will loose RC link and ensures I can prevent the copter damaging anything. I also ensure all my other safety features are set up correctly and tested to cover the low probability the simple principle above doesn't work.
I recently did a RPA operators licence course (drone licence course) that was based on DJI Phantom 3's. During the course, each day we had 1 fly away or serious control loss that could not be attributed to pilot error. Unfortunately the logs available with the Phantom 3 make it hard to work out what went wrong. In the end both of the phantoms were unoperational and not going to fly again. I suspect most of these issues were due to poor GPS however at least one of them was a complete loss of control.
So the simple answer is YOU are responsible for YOUR actions. You must ensure you minimise the risk of crashes and if your copter crashes it does so in a safe place. You can easily do this by limiting where you fly and ensuring you have the appropriate safety measures in place to terminate your flight if needed. The level of risk you accept is up to you.
Unfortunately I have absolutely no idea what Switzerland has to do with any of this.
The FAA is unambiguous. Drones are aircraft and fall under title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 (and others) for operational regulation:
§91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
Any accident, regardless of the cause, is the responsibility of the Pilot in Command. This is also subject to the regulations of the NTSB, Title 49 part 830, which defines what an accident is and what has to be reported. I think it unlikely any drone crash would rise to the definition of "accident". If the FAA insists we abide by these regulations, we should insist on applying all of them.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next