Build 829 (Patch) is now out. Here we go again!

[oliver]

In Yuneec ma have said that it is normal. ??

Because they do not know!

 

[JackMTaco]

If a modification leads to a fix , then the design was flawed from the manufacture. Now in courts, it becomes proving that said modification did correct the manufacturer's defect. That's where the $$$ comes in or you could prove the manufacture was negligent and knew of the design flaw.

There is no reason I should be running 784 build if the latest firmware fix corrected the problem but it hasn't so where is the responsibility at? With the manufacture for not providing correct firmware or with the operator using old firmware that doesnt have any problems with it?

 

[oliver]

If a modification leads to a fix , then the design was flawed from the manufacture. Now in courts, it becomes proving that said modification did correct the manufacturer's defect. That's where the $$$ comes in or you could prove the manufacture was negligent and knew of the design flaw.

There is no reason I should be running 784 build if the latest firmware fix corrected the problem but it hasn't so where is the responsibility at? With the manufacture for not providing correct firmware or with the operator using old firmware that doesnt have any problems with it?

This is where in the courts, common sense will appear and do justice.
Nobody will accuse you if you are an honest person.

After, are you hobbies or professionals?

 

[Phaedrus]

Did you snitch?

Huh?? I was hired both times by the defense as an expert witness. One was a personal injury case one was a product liability case.

 

[Phaedrus]

If a modification leads to a fix , then the design was flawed from the manufacture. Now in courts, it becomes proving that said modification did correct the manufacturer's defect. That's where the $$$ comes in or you could prove the manufacture was negligent and knew of the design flaw.

There is no reason I should be running 784 build if the latest firmware fix corrected the problem but it hasn't so where is the responsibility at? With the manufacture for not providing correct firmware or with the operator using old firmware that doesnt have any problems with it?

Having actually been one of the few people here with any actual experience in courts with this type of issue I can tell you that modifications of standard equipment are viewed as evidence of potentially negligent operation. Your view of if something being defective and your modification as the fix is not a part of the conversation. The only time it would matter is if you were suing the manufacturer for product liability and proving that the "fix" you did actually did anything. But for normal cases like liability from an accident a modification works against you.

 

[RPR]

Do not be angry with my friend, for my part I managed several design office, the last with 40 engineers for a small aircraft manufacturer: AIRBUS
I worked on the 320, 330,340, 380 and A400M structures
My experience allows me to judge if we have the right or not to disassemble a flying device built by another company.
As you say, my flight was very strong this morning with the 784
And as I wrote, it is only my point of view.
Do not get bored, we're here just to share our experiences

I’m not angry, this is not the avenue for that. My favorite was the 784, but need to let go and have to fly on a new build/software each time.

 

[RPR]

Huh?? I was hired both times by the defense as an expert witness. One was a personal injury case one was a product liability case.

Relax.. laugh a bit, homie. I was just pulling your legs, bro.

 

[TurboDad81]

Knock on wood, I haven't had the ascend issue in a while.

Well, I spoke too soon. I haven't had this issue in weeks, then when I fired up my H+ after a battery swap, there it goes again. Got it down and did an emergency stop. Wouldn't react to holding the button. Restarted the H+ and went through this 4 or 5 times before it actually flew right.

 

[PatR]

Do not be angry with my friend, for my part I managed several design office, the last with 40 engineers for a small aircraft manufacturer: AIRBUS
I worked on the 320, 330,340, 380 and A400M structures...

Kudos to Oliver for his vast experience with certificated aircraft and to Phaedrus with his expert witness status. Despite their obvious qualifications we have a condition here in the U.S. where commercial drone operators are made responsible for assuring their aircraft to be safe for flight. In essence they become the people that have to guarantee the aircraft is flight worthy, that firmware is bug free, that mechanical and electrical assemblies were designed and integrated properly by a manufacturer. As there are zero aircraft certification standards for multirotors, here or in China, for any of their associated systems the operators effectively become flight engineers and aircraft certification authorities every time they fly their aircraft.

There is ample current and historical evidence to establish that multirotor manufacturers do not thoroughly validate their software, balance propellers, at times fail to employ adequate propeller retention methods, provide less than high level of assurance GPS modules, provide highly inaccurate altimeters, perform questionable timing of ESC’s, install minimally adequate landing gear actuator components, fail to adequately provide for the effective cooling of electrical assemblies, and pay little attention to common EMI/RMI shielding practices. Nor do any of them publish minimum design performance standards or flight test data. The manufacturers provide nothing to establish their products were safe for flight at time of import or at point of sale, let alone in the buyers hands. The previous applies to ALL eastern multirotor manufacturers.

In a court of law it could easily be argued that some modifications were necessary to assure an aircraft was safe for flight. Such an argument would require one or more certified aero engineers to dispute it. Although not an engineer I would be one that would testify that some modifications to factory hard and software would benefit safety of flight when performed by experienced and qualified owners if modifications were performed after obtaining negative flight performance evidence after extensive flight testing.

 

[Phaedrus]

I'll just leave at that I do not agree with your assessment. My experience has been that courts generally view modifications by anyone other than the manufacturer are called into question, regardless of the motivation.

 

[PatR]

Indeed, we’ll use Boeing as a perfect example of manufacturer infallibility.

 

[Phaedrus]

Indeed, we’ll use Boeing as a perfect example of manufacturer infallibility.

Not really the point. More to the point would have been if an operator made modifications and then a plane crashed. Those modifications would be made suspect.

But we are way off topic now.

 

[RPR]

Not defending @PAT R because he can defend himself.

I know where he is coming from, because he builds his own sUAS and is a veteran who has worked extensively in the field. Don’t think for a minute that we operators in the field are not concern about safety and when one works in construction (The real operators and not the wannabes, just because they flew over the pit thinks he is now a construction drone operator) will tell you that our safety eval is what we attain to keep a spotless record.

I work for a very well know developer in America, who bought its competitor for 9 billion, because it stood in its way, and if you go to work looking funny, you will get sent for drug testing. Ever notice, why I stop by at the hut and check, with the site foreman’s?

I am surprised, when I ask someone in the commercialdrone forum, if he checks in with his safety foreman and he replied “No” He never reports. Right then n’ there, I caught him in a lie, because I know the developer, and has flown for them twice. A developer implementing the use of UAV has strict guidelines and safety protocols.

Modifications are acceptable “if” it does not break the safety protocols, because getting a 95% safety evaluation is not good enough. It is 100% or nothing at all.

Come on gang, who do you guys work for?

 

[Phaedrus]

And your site safety officer is qualified and trained to determine if your modifications are appropriate or not?

 

[oliver]

Everyone does what he wants with his equipment, it was just a remark, a piece of advice.
Strongly the new version to test.

 

[RPR]

And your site safety officer is qualified and trained to determine if your modifications are appropriate or not?

I really hope so, because he checks me off, every time, I check-in. And he is also responsible for the safety of others. It would be a shame for Lennar and Mortenson for hiring mediocre folks.

 

[RPR]

Everyone does what he wants with his equipment, it was just a remark, a piece of advice.
Strongly the new version to test.

Amen.

A build/firmware that we do not have to add copper foil and sprinkle holy water. Because it’s getting to be a headache that we have to doctor our drone.

 

[AH-1G]

Dang RPR, you go back and forth, it's a love hate relationship with your drones.
It's like a mental issue.?

 

[RPR]

Dang RPR, you go back and forth, it's a love hate relationship with your drones.
It's like a mental issue.?

Being careful , and got something to show for.

 

[PatR]

As an individual that builds their own drones is just as much a “manufacturer” as a big consumer drone manufacturer and operate commercially in the NAS I’ll reaffirm my position that any modification made to a system that improves safety would be very difficult to challenge. In a case where expert witnesses were being employed he has the ability to provide witnesses having the technical and historical knowledge to challenge the plaintiff’s witness.

The plaintiff has to prove alterations were detrimental to safety performance. It’s pretty easy to prove well researched alterations can and do improve safety over and above what the more common multirotor manufacturers currently provide. If that operator had performed flight testing before and after alterations and maintained a detailed record of performance that included detailed telemetry that demonstrated safety improvements he would have more evidence than manufacturers provide in their system manuals.

The average “Joe Blow” is certainly playing above their pay grade when they modify things but there are many that would not be.

Again, it’s the operator that is responsible to assure the aircraft is safe for flight and there are no certification standards assigned to drones, or their associated components or firmware at this time. If a manufacturer installed component failed or software was buggy and induced an incident, the operator takes the fall for flying an unsafe aircraft. Bear in mind consumer drones are imported classified as toys, not aircraft or certificated aircraft. That’s also why they haven’t been hit with import tariffs yet.