Date: 6/06/17

Claudio Martins Ferreira – Fazenda Meandros Location: São Paulo, SP, Brasil

Review about: Airborne Drones, Capetown , South Africa



  1. Gideon Gerber (company owner)
  2. John James Gerber (owner’s son)
  3. David Bezuidenhout


  1. B) Order
  2. Date of placement: 08/31/16
  3. Original lead time to supply specified by manufacturer:-30 days
  4. Delivered in time: NO. Delay was 30 to 180 days late (see item D)


  1. C) Unexpected- Extra costs incurred

Delivery cost from Miami ,F,, USA to São Paulo , Brasil    – USD 8.000,00


  1. D) Date of items received

Part of the items were delivered in mid September 2016 , part in February 2017 and part was not delivered. The last item delivered was wrong: two blade propellers instead of triblades. So it is useless.


  1. E) Condition of items received

Only part of the items purchased was delivered, and not working properly (see item H)


  1. F) Characteristics of the delivered items

Most of the equipment delivered was defective, low quality and did not meet the stated/promised specs;


  1. G) Items/ issues still unsolved

The equipment is still not operational (see items H and I  );


  1. H) Description of communications with the company during this purchase – how has the order and / or any issues been dealt with

1- The company had and is obliged to deliver the acquired products with all the characteristics and specifications announced and in perfect operation. The purchase was made in the trust, with payment in advance.


2- In the first delivery it was verified that only part of the equipment purchased was delivered, and items such as ground station were replaced by a lower model whose value was only 20% of that of the equipment purchased. Also with this equipment was impossible to fill the characteristics Autonomous flight and long-range video.


  1. Yet you still made a naive attempt to convince me that the inferior is equal to the superior!


4- This behaviour clearly characterizes a (frustrated) attempt to deceive the customer. It is unethical and dishonest.


5- Only after I posted a complaint on consumer protection sites did Mr. John James contact me saying that he was going to send the missing equipment, change the ground station and send a technician to carry out repairs, configurations and (Including flight test).


¨6- When the technician (Mr. Daniel) finally arrived 8 months had already passed since the date of purchase of the equipment.


7- Then it was verified that the problems with the drone were much bigger than the initially foreseen:

– All the configuration and hardware of the ground station had to be revised. Errors were also found in the internal cables that had to be redone

-Gimbal camera did not work

The video transmitter was defective. I even bought another one here in Brazil to replace it.

The IR Flir camera was a basic model that cannot record videos

The technician worked many days trying to solve these problems but every time he needed some information the delay in response was at least 24 hours, which delayed his work even more


8- Since the technician was staying here longer than expected, you started pushing me to send him back. On several occasions, I explained that all this delay was the fault of the lack of professionalism of your company that sent the drone without pre-testing it and with the wrong ground station. Also, you did not send the spare propellers that I had already bought and paid for. I also explained that the technician should stay here until all problems are resolved so that the drone is in safe operating condition.


  1. Your statement that all technical problems have been solved is false and a lie. The flight video that you cited as proof was just an attempt, without camera operation, gimbal, video (FPV) and autonomous flight capability (mission planer software). A complete test should also include the distance test both for telemetry and for video transmission. None of this was done because several problems had not yet been solved.


10 – In this sense, the technician himself always stated that he wished to complete his work successfully and never stated his intention to return without doing so.

11- Keeping the technician here until all problems were solved leaving the

equipment in perfect working order should be an initiative of the seller and

manufacturer = you. An ethical and honest initiative. But that is not what happened.


12- The technician was staying at my house with my family and was never forced to be against his will or prevented from returning immediately to South Africa. He was simply trying to finish his work because he knew that the drone was not yet in Adequate and safe operating conditions. All these lies that you have invented are further proof of the unethical and dishonest behavior of your company.


13- After the fraudulent denunciation that the technician was prevented from returning here, the local police were activated via embassy of South Africa, and he had to leave immediately without completing his work leaving the equipment without operational conditions.

14 – The attempt to distort the facts was revealed by the statements made by the technician at the police station and the staff of the embassy, stating that he was not here against his will and was not prevented from returning to his country.

In summary, this is a dishonest company, who does not mind trying to deliver only a portion of what has been purchased, and a defective product with quality and characteristics well below promised specifications and obviously not working.


  1. I) Drone operational state

Not operational

  1. J) My opinion about this company

I do not recommend. It’s a dishonest company

Claudio martins Ferreira