As mention, disclaimers do NOT absolve corporations from liability. Ask any liability lawyer.
Calif. tourist fined $20K for out-of-control drone that landed at airport in Las Vegas flight in 2018
- Thread starter BigAl07
- Start date
As mention, disclaimers do NOT absolve corporations from liability. Ask any liability lawyer.
Phaedrus
Well-Known Member
I've long had an issue with the way DJI enforces their geofencing without regard for a person being licensed and having FAA authorization and acting as if they are doing some great service to the drone community. Then they turn around and make a big deal about how far their drones can be flown, to distances well BVLOS.
True hypocrisy. And the way they advertise range tends to make neophyte users explore those limits.
True hypocrisy. And the way they advertise range tends to make neophyte users explore those limits.
Ajkm
Well-Known Member
As PIC it's his job to know the regulations and the airspace he's flying in. Period.
Do you know every single regulation and requirement regarding the operation a drone in the U.S.? I understand the PIC requirements but drones and other small aircraft have been around for decades without much regulation and many folks have no idea just how regulated they have become. DJI touts their Geofencing as a way to comply with regulations and some folks that aren't aware of the limitations and problems with it may rely on it to avoid infringement into controlled airspace. Again, my argument is how geofencing is marketed and enforced opens DJI up to being held liable when their geofencing allows an excursion into controlled airspace or without cause results in economic loss if some isn't allowed to fly at a place and time in which they are authorized to fly REGARDLESS of any disclaimer or the PIC rules.
If we lived in a vacuum it might be possible to use an ignorance defense and put the liability on DJI’s back, along with extended range enablement.
But we don’t live in a vacuum and a combination of government enlightenment programs, hobby industry educational efforts, and bombardment level media reporting on an international scale since at least late 2014 makes such liability shift near impossible.
We don’t have to know each and every drone law, just being aware there are laws for drones is enough for a reasonable person to understand they need to research the law when they don’t know. I know of nobody that knows all the laws in the vehicle code yet we are cited and held accountable when we violate laws we didn’t know. We don’t sue the auto maker when drivers cause crashes by violating the vehicle code.
Despite a generation or two doing all they can to absolve themselves of personal responsibility it still exists. We cannot avoid responsibility for doing wrong while still being rewarded for doing right or good. Everything cannot always be somebody else’s fault. We can file suit for just about any reason but filing and winning are two very different things.
But we don’t live in a vacuum and a combination of government enlightenment programs, hobby industry educational efforts, and bombardment level media reporting on an international scale since at least late 2014 makes such liability shift near impossible.
We don’t have to know each and every drone law, just being aware there are laws for drones is enough for a reasonable person to understand they need to research the law when they don’t know. I know of nobody that knows all the laws in the vehicle code yet we are cited and held accountable when we violate laws we didn’t know. We don’t sue the auto maker when drivers cause crashes by violating the vehicle code.
Despite a generation or two doing all they can to absolve themselves of personal responsibility it still exists. We cannot avoid responsibility for doing wrong while still being rewarded for doing right or good. Everything cannot always be somebody else’s fault. We can file suit for just about any reason but filing and winning are two very different things.
"The pilot in command is responsible.... That covers everything. "
As it has been ever since Orville and Wilbur flipped that coin at the sand dunes. During my years as a police commander and chief I displayed a plaque in my office with the words of one of my personal heroes, Admiral Hyman Rickover:
"Responsibility is a unique concept... You may share it with others, but your portion is not diminished. You may delegate it, but it is still with you... If responsibility is rightfully yours, no evasion, or ignorance or passing the blame can shift the burden to someone else. Unless you can point your finger at the man who is responsible when something goes wrong, then you have never had anyone really responsible. "
I ensured every supervisor or commander reporting to me read it and understood the words. And that they applied to me too.
Yes, we don't live in a vacuum. But the things that occupy the space you live in are not the same things that occupy the space others live it. You might be amazed regarding the ignorance other individuals have on a host of things that you are well aware of because they are the focus of your life. I've been a pilot, martial artist, firearms enthusiast, motorcyclist, numismatist, electronic component engineer, etc. most of my life. I've discovered in all of these things you don't know what you don't know until you know it. It's a mistake to make assumptions about what other people should know based on your life's experience.
Again, I'm not trying to absolve individuals of their responsibility to learn as much as they can about what they are looking to involve themselves in BUT there is a learning curve and I believe based on how DJI promotes geofencing that they are setting themselves up to share liability if something bad happens where geofencing may have played a part in an excursion into prohibited airspace.
R.Perry
Well-Known Member
Sir, I think what you are missing something here, when it comes to aviation, the pilot is responsible for not only knowing the law, but flying in a safe and prudent manner. We don't know when or if he had ever updated the drones software, if he hadn't and it is an older drone he could fly anywhere he wanted. The other issue if I read this right, he took off from the roof of a parking lot. If so he may have had some major interference due to the concrete structure that is also filled with steel, bad idea.
To me this person was a hobbyist that was clueless to proper flight operations. I find it very interesting that the drone just decided to overfly the airport all on it's own. Certainly the home point, new or original wasn't in the middle of the airport. If I were to make a guess, I would bet he flew it out there then later claimed he lost control, but that is just an assumption. The flight log should either verify or disprove his claim.
I have flown in and out of the Las Vegas airport many times, it is a very busy airport with aircraft using multiple runways. I totally agree with the fine the FAA hit him with.
One thing I would like to know, is how many incidents have happened where a drone took off on it's own that can be verified.
"
If I were to make a guess, I would bet he flew it out there then later claimed he lost control, but that is just an assumption. The flight log should either verify or disprove his claim. "
Ding-ding-ding.....
I tend to agree with that as the flight was executed just high enough to clear tall buildings. Like the guy that hit the helicopter the attempt to use ignorance as a defense didn’t work, just as blaming the manufacturer won’t.
DJI’s U.S. legal counsel is pretty bright and I doubt they would have approved of The Small UAV Coalition’s (DJI was a member) creation of the no fly zone concept had there been a chance of anything spilling back onto them.
When the auto pilot fails, the real life pilot has to take over.
DJI’s U.S. legal counsel is pretty bright and I doubt they would have approved of The Small UAV Coalition’s (DJI was a member) creation of the no fly zone concept had there been a chance of anything spilling back onto them.
When the auto pilot fails, the real life pilot has to take over.
R.Perry
Well-Known Member
That is true in most cases. What unnerves me a little is our modern aircraft are totally dependent on the on board computers, if they fail, the pilot becomes a passenger. Now you can have system failures and still fly. With our drones if we have a full processor failure we become observers wondering where it will end up.
I haven't missed the point but I live in the real world where unexpected stuff happens and responsibility is shared by multiple parties. Yes, he may be a hobbyist that isn't fully aware if his responsibility and maybe wasn't 100% clear on what DJI geofencing can and cannot do. And a part of that lack of clarity may be the result of how geofencing is advertised and/or his past experience with geofencing (warned and/or prevented him from making a flight in controlled airspace) raising expectations that geofencing will always prevent unauthorized flights into controlled airspace. I know the black and white of the situation but I also understand that where there is black and white there is the potential for gray.
There is a lawsuit (not sure of current status) where RTH failed and the aircraft ended up in controlled airspace. DJI was a party in the lawsuit with the claim that the failure of their system was responsible for the airspace violation. If I can find anything on the current status I'll post a link.
Last edited:
That’s where the military is way ahead of us. They employ a type of conditional code where different types of failures can be set to do different things, and any given combination of failures can be set to initiate some form of auto destruct actions.
Let’s say you lost GPS and a little later also lost communication with the aircraft. Where losing GPS is not a big deal, losing comms is. You can still fly without GPS but losing comms in and off itself might initiate an auto return as long as GPS is still present. But lose GPS and comms would have the aircraft going to anywhere without the ability to determine where it is or going. So after “X” seconds of a combined failure the engine shuts down and the aircraft enters a vertical descending spiral until impact. One problem solved but creates a possible problem with what’s underneath the aircraft. That’s where plausible deniability and blaming the PIC enters the picture...
Let’s say you lost GPS and a little later also lost communication with the aircraft. Where losing GPS is not a big deal, losing comms is. You can still fly without GPS but losing comms in and off itself might initiate an auto return as long as GPS is still present. But lose GPS and comms would have the aircraft going to anywhere without the ability to determine where it is or going. So after “X” seconds of a combined failure the engine shuts down and the aircraft enters a vertical descending spiral until impact. One problem solved but creates a possible problem with what’s underneath the aircraft. That’s where plausible deniability and blaming the PIC enters the picture...
Dave Pitman
Well-Known Member
Pat, that is the exact scenario where we are, for the most part, rolling the dice for sure. I had a debate with someone about the language in most (all?) controlled airspace COAs.
4. EMERGENCY/CONTINGENCY PROCEDURES - Lost Link/Lost Communications Procedures:
- a. If the UAS loses communications OR loses its Global Positioning System signal, the Unmanned Aircraft must return to a pre-determined location within the operating area and land.
My opinion is that if we have a loss of control AND a gps problem at the same time, as unlikely as that may be, I'm fairly certain that the FAA expects the operator to take full responsibility.
Thoughts anyone?
Anyone employ, or know of a contingency for this with the consumer gear we use?
At the consumer level I don’t. It may still be present, or may not, but 3DR used to have program election options to land immediately upon GPS or signal loss.
The self destruct option is not one many consumer drone makers would incorporate for two reasons; liability if falling on a person and consumers object greatly to anything that might cost them money. They don’t understand that once GPS and comms/link are out that money is already gone. Everything after that point is pure hope.
The self destruct option is not one many consumer drone makers would incorporate for two reasons; liability if falling on a person and consumers object greatly to anything that might cost them money. They don’t understand that once GPS and comms/link are out that money is already gone. Everything after that point is pure hope.
Last edited:
Dave Pitman
Well-Known Member
I think that a very simple program block that would have the craft land in place at a very slow descent rate if both control and gps telemetry are lost for more than say 5 seconds. The odds that the drone would cause serious harm are very low and that is a great outcome in that circumstance, in my opinion.
That could be added to craft right now with negligible effort on the manufacturer's part.
That could be added to craft right now with negligible effort on the manufacturer's part.
Guess that's were we diverge. When he chose to fly in controlled airspace, he chose to accept full responsibility for the flight and the "DJI made me do it" defense will not fly in a civil court nor FAA administrative hearing. He intentionally chose to begin an illegal flight and is 100% accountable for the outcome. As I understand it there were no injuries or damage so don't see this going to a civil trial. When the Titanic went down, Captain Smith was held ultimately responsible (posthumously), not the builder or White Star.
The Rickover rule.
Dave,
I agree with you but at 50mph 5 seconds is more than a football field. It may well be that for consumer products a controlled descent be initiated immediately after link and GPS are lost.
