Your assumption is that accidental CSC activations will happen on an increasing basis is a big flaw in this argument.
Do you have any data, numbers of incidents that support this assumption?
Of the 26000 members here, I have only seen 2 or three reports of accidental CSC in flight for the P3.
And when was the last one? Quite a few weeks back.
Accidental CSC was extremely rare for the P2 series and still is for the P3 series.
Even rarer if you could take out some spurious reports to leave just genuine accidents.
Accidental CSC is extremely rare and is not increasing.
There have been enough posts explaining that it's ridiculous to have a two step emergency shut down switch.
I’m sorry but I can’t agree with you. If nothing is done to change the way a CSC is activated, and if the number of phantoms in the public doubles, the odds, albeit low, of accidental CSC also doubles. The P3 is being advertised extensively. As I mentioned in a previous post, it’s now available at Staples, Best Buy, Walmart and other fine retailers, not just dedicated hobby sites/shops. With increased accessibility comes an increase in numbers. The increase in numbers will increase the number of inadvertent CSC’s even if the actual odds of accidental CSC remains the same.
Sure the actual accidental CSC is rare, so are major airline crashes, yet all, and I do mean all airlines and aircraft manufactures study SOP’s (Standard Operating Procedures) and aircraft design and functionality constantly. Failure to do so dooms the ignorant to litigation and obscurity. Should a procedure be reviewed after it becomes an issue or before?
While studying this issue, I found 4 cases of possible CSC's in flight since May 22, 2015. Some at this forum, some at others. I also watched a YouTube video of a possible CSC where the phantom almost hit someone on the ground. If DJI does nothing and a very rare event happens where an accidental CSC results in personal injury, will they survive litigation unscathed? Maybe, but remember one important fact in litigation.
The act of not doing something IS the act of doing something. In other words, if you choose not to do something and someone gets hurt as a result of your choice, you are in part responsible for the outcome.
You said, “
There have been enough posts explaining that it's ridiculous to have a two-step emergency shut down switch.” In reference to my comment about “
a CSC with a warning to prevent unintentional uses”. Perhaps you were thinking of other posts as the suggestion by me was not a two-step process, rather just an audible warning that a shutdown was imminent. Two–step refers the two steps a person has to do to perform the action. This was not what I suggested.
In closing, correct me if I’m wrong but the P2 had 4 CSC activation commands, but the P3 only has 2. DJI thought they should reduce the number – why? Perhaps just to simplify the procedure, or maybe not. Food for thought.