Rarely responding to emails from a deaf client is a clear violation of Federal regulations. Wells Fargo was fined several million dollars on a similar issue. YUNEEC OFFICERS ANSWER EMAILS PROMPTLY or you just might get a call from DOJ
yuneec customer service excuses suck
- Thread starter kyleg2222
- Start date
Rarely responding to emails from a deaf client is a clear violation of Federal regulations. Wells Fargo was fined several million dollars on a similar issue. YUNEEC OFFICERS ANSWER EMAILS PROMPTLY or you just might get a call from DOJ
PatR
Premium Pilot
rdonson
Premium Pilot
PatR
Premium Pilot
Put another way, I would not consider buying another Yuneec product until they demonstrate considerable improvement in their customer relations. When they work they work well but when they don't the customer appears to get abandoned. Their customer support has fallen far from what it was only a year ago.
It's pretty hard to obtain new business while distancing yourself from your long term customers.
It's pretty hard to obtain new business while distancing yourself from your long term customers.
Last edited:
rdonson
Premium Pilot
I agree, Pat. I was thinking that in 2018 I might consider an H520 with an e90 but I will put that off until we know what’s going on with Yuneec.
PatR
Premium Pilot
I am pleased to report that Terrestrial Imaging
made some e-mails and calls to Yuneec which generated a call from Yuneec C.S. to me this morning.
End result established that what I have been experiencing, and most of the frustrations, are normal conditions with the 920. The operating documentation does not include references to some of the functions that appear on the ST-16 screen. The function depictions are present (Histogram GUI-Histogram selectivity-Union) but do not work with the 920+. Although the Union function does work, it's an automated feature and not something the user has any interaction with as it controls matching shutter speed and aperture when using "P", or as it's more commonly known,"Auto" mode. No mention is made the 920+ system does not provide a complete firmware report in the ST-16's System menu when using the CGO-4. Note, if using a CGO-3, it does. Lacking descriptive reference the user is left with thinking something is broken when it is not. We encounter a situation (common across multirotor makers) where some additional effort writing documentation would have eliminated considerable concern, and irritation with all involved .
With the information I now have I will put some time into developing total system confidence. The revelations establish that I will need to alter the manner I will use the 920 in some areas but "work around's" are present that will provide full functionality with a bit more effort. I have to eat a little crow because I did not have a full understanding of the system as currently designed, but on a similar note the documentation reference necessary to make that understanding possible are not published by the manufacturer. I'll attribute the lack of manufacturer response and issues with their automated phone system to their change of office locations over the past few days. I'm still adamant about the need for improvements in their CS department going forward. It should not have required a dealer to go above and beyond to making calls to Yuneec to affect a response. Again, my sincerest thanks to Chris and Mike at Terrestrial Imaging, and Mike at Yuneec, to obtain resolution.
To expand a bit on what's been going on, Yuneec initiated an actual move from one location to another last week and some of that move is still in play. Preparations for the move started before last Friday which certainly contributed to some of the current issues. The phone systems are still being set up by their IT department, which is aware that calls are being dropped and are working to fix the problem. They acknowledge there are problems with the set up right now and are in the process of correcting them. The call I was in with Yuneec today was interrupted and Mike at Yuneec called me back again a little later after the system was brought up again. Also mentioned is they are working to get up to date with e-mail responses. On a personal note, I have yet to see an IT department, anywhere, that has either enough people or is organized. I'll assume such is again the case and "situation normal" for the type of people involved with IT
made some e-mails and calls to Yuneec which generated a call from Yuneec C.S. to me this morning.End result established that what I have been experiencing, and most of the frustrations, are normal conditions with the 920. The operating documentation does not include references to some of the functions that appear on the ST-16 screen. The function depictions are present (Histogram GUI-Histogram selectivity-Union) but do not work with the 920+. Although the Union function does work, it's an automated feature and not something the user has any interaction with as it controls matching shutter speed and aperture when using "P", or as it's more commonly known,"Auto" mode. No mention is made the 920+ system does not provide a complete firmware report in the ST-16's System menu when using the CGO-4. Note, if using a CGO-3, it does. Lacking descriptive reference the user is left with thinking something is broken when it is not. We encounter a situation (common across multirotor makers) where some additional effort writing documentation would have eliminated considerable concern, and irritation with all involved .
With the information I now have I will put some time into developing total system confidence. The revelations establish that I will need to alter the manner I will use the 920 in some areas but "work around's" are present that will provide full functionality with a bit more effort. I have to eat a little crow because I did not have a full understanding of the system as currently designed, but on a similar note the documentation reference necessary to make that understanding possible are not published by the manufacturer. I'll attribute the lack of manufacturer response and issues with their automated phone system to their change of office locations over the past few days. I'm still adamant about the need for improvements in their CS department going forward. It should not have required a dealer to go above and beyond to making calls to Yuneec to affect a response. Again, my sincerest thanks to Chris and Mike at Terrestrial Imaging, and Mike at Yuneec, to obtain resolution.
To expand a bit on what's been going on, Yuneec initiated an actual move from one location to another last week and some of that move is still in play. Preparations for the move started before last Friday which certainly contributed to some of the current issues. The phone systems are still being set up by their IT department, which is aware that calls are being dropped and are working to fix the problem. They acknowledge there are problems with the set up right now and are in the process of correcting them. The call I was in with Yuneec today was interrupted and Mike at Yuneec called me back again a little later after the system was brought up again. Also mentioned is they are working to get up to date with e-mail responses. On a personal note, I have yet to see an IT department, anywhere, that has either enough people or is organized. I'll assume such is again the case and "situation normal" for the type of people involved with IT
Last edited:
rdonson
Premium Pilot
Pat, I’m glad some of your concerns have been resolved. What remains though is that Yuneec failed to adequately document an expensive, complex commercial craft. That seems unconscionable to me.
Kudos to Terrestrial Imaging.
Kudos to Terrestrial Imaging.
Not perfect software means big for the drone even if they placed topnotch hardware in there. If Yuneec won't focus on updating their drone firmwares, maybe it would even be better to let the users fix the firmware problems themselves. I mean, if only they'd allow us to edit their firmwares, then flyers who also happen to be good programmers can come to this forum and create a community for that matter.
Anyway, thanks for the info.
PatR
Premium Pilot
hlorensl,
This will be off topic but at the same time totally applicable to what you referenced in your post. The ability of people to deal with the software in flight controllers has been present for a very long time but sales of those systems is well under the volume of "consumer drone" equipment that comes "pre-packaged" with manufacturer established performance parameters. APM, Pixhawk, Vector, Mikrokopter, have all provided considerably more system access than consumer drones, but people avoid them due to their complexity and the level of knowledge necessary to make full use of their capabilities.
We also need to consider the potential repercussions generated by user programming errors. Flying a 3lb to 15lb multirotor into the face of someone because we didn't understand what we were doing when changing code parameters is not something manufacturers of consumer drones want to deal with. They have a corporate responsibility to both generate profit for their stakeholders while also protecting them from legal liability. Can you imaging the chaos and legal restrictions that would be generated by 5, 10, or 100 people with no understanding of code and syntax fat fingering a bunch of changes to autopilot flight control algorithms? If we were to peruse various DJI product forums we can already see where people actively engaged in system alterations are doing so in order to fly much further and higher than they are legally permitted to do, while also enabling their ability to fly in restricted airspace locations. Bad enough they are doing that but they publish their results in open internet forums where any and everyone can read about their exploits. In so doing they are sowing the seeds of their, and our, demise as government agencies and public safety zealots use this information to develop new and more restrictive regulatory standards.
So manufacturers design and build what a fairly large segment of the population want and while doing so set them up in such a way as to limit the consumer from creating more liability for the company than absolutely necessary while still providing product functionality that pacifies the consuming public. In a manner of speaking that design process protects the manufacturer from the consumer and protects the consumer from themselves. If people want open code they can have it if they purchase systems that provide full access and build what they want or need. They don't have to buy pre-set consumer drones to use as foundations for platforms and purposes the manufacturers never intended. We have a choice of buying the easy stuff or becoming educated and buying the cheaper, but more difficult to use, stuff.
This will be off topic but at the same time totally applicable to what you referenced in your post. The ability of people to deal with the software in flight controllers has been present for a very long time but sales of those systems is well under the volume of "consumer drone" equipment that comes "pre-packaged" with manufacturer established performance parameters. APM, Pixhawk, Vector, Mikrokopter, have all provided considerably more system access than consumer drones, but people avoid them due to their complexity and the level of knowledge necessary to make full use of their capabilities.
We also need to consider the potential repercussions generated by user programming errors. Flying a 3lb to 15lb multirotor into the face of someone because we didn't understand what we were doing when changing code parameters is not something manufacturers of consumer drones want to deal with. They have a corporate responsibility to both generate profit for their stakeholders while also protecting them from legal liability. Can you imaging the chaos and legal restrictions that would be generated by 5, 10, or 100 people with no understanding of code and syntax fat fingering a bunch of changes to autopilot flight control algorithms? If we were to peruse various DJI product forums we can already see where people actively engaged in system alterations are doing so in order to fly much further and higher than they are legally permitted to do, while also enabling their ability to fly in restricted airspace locations. Bad enough they are doing that but they publish their results in open internet forums where any and everyone can read about their exploits. In so doing they are sowing the seeds of their, and our, demise as government agencies and public safety zealots use this information to develop new and more restrictive regulatory standards.
So manufacturers design and build what a fairly large segment of the population want and while doing so set them up in such a way as to limit the consumer from creating more liability for the company than absolutely necessary while still providing product functionality that pacifies the consuming public. In a manner of speaking that design process protects the manufacturer from the consumer and protects the consumer from themselves. If people want open code they can have it if they purchase systems that provide full access and build what they want or need. They don't have to buy pre-set consumer drones to use as foundations for platforms and purposes the manufacturers never intended. We have a choice of buying the easy stuff or becoming educated and buying the cheaper, but more difficult to use, stuff.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2017
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 3
- Age
- 78
I had a phone conversation with Yuneec yesterday that didn't go well and the more inputs that I read from other drone pilots the more I am convinced that our Typhoon H's have a problem with the operating software. My Typhoon H stopped responding to my commands and just hovered at about 25 ft. I tried inputting commands using all the flight modes and nothing worked. I could only watch as my drone slowly drifted into a wall and crashed to the ground. At Yuneec's request I returned the drone to them so they could analyze the telemetry. 6 months and numerous phone calls later I finally gave up on getting them to take responsibility for the crash and I paid them $245.00 to fix it.
I am a retired engineer and in my 40 years of work I learned to pay attention to details. When I returned the drone I included a detailed letter as to what occurred before the crash. Yuneec's conclusion was that I flew it into the ground which is totally opposite as to what actually occurred. I don't know if Yuneec is trying to avoid paying for the repairs or if maybe the telemetry is not as accurate as we are told it is.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2017
- Messages
- 4,258
- Reaction score
- 2,025
PatR
Premium Pilot
Don,
I suspect you are dealing with a situation where those reviewing the telemetry may not fully grasp how to interpret it. They've turned over more than a few people and those retained may not have been the best where telemetry review is concerned. Their techs are not system or software engineers and who knows how much hand's on system experience they have. Reading about the system and actually using the system are quite different in end results. Too often I've interacted with some of their people only to find I knew more about the system than they did. At least three times they’ve learned of system functionality they had been unaware of. At least twice they were convinced that what they were being informed if was not so until they saw it for themselves. think Steve has experienced similar.
I suspect you are dealing with a situation where those reviewing the telemetry may not fully grasp how to interpret it. They've turned over more than a few people and those retained may not have been the best where telemetry review is concerned. Their techs are not system or software engineers and who knows how much hand's on system experience they have. Reading about the system and actually using the system are quite different in end results. Too often I've interacted with some of their people only to find I knew more about the system than they did. At least three times they’ve learned of system functionality they had been unaware of. At least twice they were convinced that what they were being informed if was not so until they saw it for themselves. think Steve has experienced similar.
Last edited:
I called them Friday, first time ever. Was on a long hold estimate, entered the call me back option and they did not that long after. I forgot the young man's name but he seemed nice enough. I asked many questions and it seemed he was not exactly sure of all I asked but I think I may have overwhelmed him.
Edit: Just found my notes his name was Angel, I asked him to spell it. We may be in good hands.
Edit: Just found my notes his name was Angel, I asked him to spell it. We may be in good hands.
I lost my little 4 drone business because of YUNEEC saying ]the crash was my fault, they did not ask for the unit and controller just the telemetry which is BS in the long run because the controller has a mind of its own. And If I cannot depend on the vendor, then i cannot have a business.. Steve Carr and Richard Gilmore know how much of a Yuneec Fan boy I was, and how awesome it was to have a side job to supplement my disability income.. I studied paid my dues, got certified, and thought I had Yuneec behind me but in the end, their CS crew at the time was a handful of, well they chose who to support and who not to support .I have said it a hundred times, if you are on the fence about buying an H buy a used one for 500 bucks and enjoy it while it flies.. But DO NOT EVER TRUST YUNEEC
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2017
- Messages
- 4,258
- Reaction score
- 2,025
I must chime in here about running a business. I was a CEO / Managing Partner working with defense contractors such as Harris Corp a $40 billion company, I since sort of retired back in 2012. You lost your drone business because Yuneec didn’t pay for (?????) there mistake or yours, it doesn’t matter. You must assume there are going to be losses and gains but bet on losses the first 1 to 5 years of a business. So what I’m reading, is you only had petty cash on hand to run your business and did not invest or have additional funds in case of a mishap? Business 101 have money set aside knowing there will be losses!!! Was it lack of marketing, not charging enough, ...... what really put you out of business?
You said you have a “4-drone business” how can 1 lost drone shut you down? The fault might be Yuneec not believing what you said had happened, they only see telemetry data. Your fault is not having the capital to maintain your business. So, don’t blame Yuneec for going out of business, that’s on you!
You said you have a “4-drone business” how can 1 lost drone shut you down? The fault might be Yuneec not believing what you said had happened, they only see telemetry data. Your fault is not having the capital to maintain your business. So, don’t blame Yuneec for going out of business, that’s on you!
Similar threads
