Charles Adams
First Officer
Flight distance : 3821312 ft
United States
Offline
|
Having had time to review these results, here are my conclusions:
While I disagree with DJI's conclusions about logs which terminate abruptly, I can't see how DJI can or should be compelled to replace a spark which is lot, solely on flight log data. More data of some kind would have to be presented to DJI in order to compel them to replace the craft.
Here's why - My third flight consisted of a simulated crash. Think of three possibilities that DJI faces:
1. Someone crashes into some object terminating the logs, and the dji is lost in deep water. The warranty requires the equipment be returned, and this scenario fits that use case. User should return the craft.
2. Through no fault of the pilot, the drone malfunctions, terminating logs. Drone crashes in water and cannot be retrieved. Yes, DJI should replace a drone which malfunctions.
3. I decide to rip DJI off. I fly over the water, grab the spark and flip it over, thus terminating the logs, and file a claim with DJI that my drone was lost due to mechanical failure, in order to get an extra drone. I know that I can't fly the current drone with current software, so I will use other software to fly my old drone which I claimed was lost. But I'll end up with two drones at DJI's expense.
It's too subject to abuse. Other evidence really needs to be presented to DJI to demonstrate that the hardware malfunctioned. Unfortunate, but true.
Now DJI MIGHT want to consider public perception and publicity, but just evaluating data, the logs alone are not enough.
|
|