One reason might be that you came back on here after DJI found in your favour, announced it, then pointed out that sar104 who was only trying to help....
He accused me of misinstalling the prop. So I made a video to prove that flying a
P4P with a misinstalling a prop is literally impossible. I showed that the prop dislodges itself immediately upon motor spin up. This is by design. Here is the video:
Perhaps what you read looked like someone trying to help. What I read looked like, in the face of absolutely irrefutable evidence, someone trying to push the blame on me. Perhaps that was not his intention. But after the third or fourth push back and dismissal of my points, I took offense. IMHO, anyone who reads through the entire exchange OBJECTIVELY will agree with me or at least see my side of the story.
He WAS wrong. But that, in and of itself, is not a big deal. We've all been wrong. It was only after I PROVED his theory impossible, and he still insisted, that I got bent out of shape.
Look...I don't mind owning that maybe I took it too personally. What I do mind is the one-sidedness of all this. I showed photos of the undamaged motor and undamaged hub. And I showed a screen capture of the motor RPM graph from the DAT file. All this painted a VERY clear picture. With minimal explanation, I could sell such a case to anybody...let alone someone who supposedly owns and flies one of these beasts. Nobody needs to see the drone. The photos and screen captures are enough. I guarantee when DJI received the drone, they looked at the .DAT file, then looked at the motor and the hub, and were done.
...(even though he didn’t have access to your AC).
For what purpose? Other than looking at the motor/hub and DAT file, what other evidence do you think DJI gathered? That's an honest question. Remember, it was an automated flight using mapping software. So there was no other evidence. There was no log file in the iPad, and there was no log file generated by the RC. The RC was literally on a stand when the prop fell off. Read: No user input.
I think you were lucky and very fortunate that your case went your way, but instead of being grateful for the result you come back and try to ‘rub it in his face’.
I am absolutely grateful. But the ruling wasn't because of "good fortune." DJI has a set of protocols they follow for warranty work. In a nutshell: If the drone is < a year old, and the user didn't cause the crash or program the drone to fly into a building or tree or set RTH too low so it flew into a hill side, they warranty it. Period.
What bothers me is that it is people like you who discourage members like sar104 and others who use their expertise to help others...
No sir. I do NOT discourage "expertise." I embrace expertise. I PINE for it. What I DO discourage is ERRONEOUS conclusions. What I vehemently discourage is continuing down that path, even in the face of irrefutable evidence. I appreciate contributions. That's why I join ANY forum.
...from possibly helping others in the future or being more careful who they choose to help.
I would LIKE to think that san104 will think twice before pushing a completely false narrative. And believe me, I can live the rest of my life without enduring completely erroneous post-mortem theories. Maybe you call that "just trying to help" or "expertise." I don't. We can agree to disagree.
I am happy for you that you got a replacement unit. Just be grateful and leave it at that - no need to come back here and say ‘Hah, I told you so.’
san104 learned he was wrong. So maybe next time he'll think twice before accusing me or others of "misinstalling a prop" or whatever. I wasn't rubbing anybody's nose in anything.
If you looked at this with a more objective eye, at the very LEAST you might see WHY I got upset.
Good day, sir. Maximum respect.
