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
3D Robotics is clear as well, "IN NO EVENT WILL 3D ROBOTICS BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING
OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE"
It open source software, everyone writes it, it's nobody's fault.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
David shares wise counsel
@Moderator:
This guy is a troll, nothing more, nothing less. His ignorance is only surpassed by his arrogance.
It is obvious to the most casual of observers that Darius Jack's primary agenda is to post content that are plainly accusatory, disrespectful, and inflammatory diatribes against members of the development team who, in the spirit of the concept of Open Source, have so generously poured countless man years of mental and physical effort into this project. I say it is time that we as the end users and benefactors of this selfless generosity show our support for and our gratitude to our benefactors by standing up in the defence of the Development Team against these heinous and unwarranted attacks.
I want to be the first to stand up and cast my vote to have Darius Jack banned.
How say you all?
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next