Bad Experience with Airborne drones

Date: 6/06/17 Claudio Martins Ferreira Fazenda Meandros Location: So Paulo, SP, Brasil Review about: Airborne Drones, Capetown , South Africa A) 1.Gideon Gerber (company owner) 2.John James Gerber (owners son) chap@***.co 3.David Bezuidenhout david@***.co B)Order 1.Date of placement: 08/31/16 2.Original lead time to supply specified by manufacturer:-30 days 3.Delivered in time: NO. Delay was 30 to 180 days late (see item D) C) Unexpected- Extra costs incurred Delivery cost from Miami ,F,, USA to So Paulo , Brasil - USD 8.000,00 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. E) Condition of items received Only part of the items purchased was delivered, and not working properly (see item H) F)Characteristics of the delivered items Most of the equipment delivered was defective, low quality and did not meet the stated/promised specs; G)Items/ issues still unsolved The equipment is still not operational (see items H and I ); 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. 3. 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. 9. 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. I)Drone operational state Not operational J)My opinion about this company I do not recommend. Its a dishonest company Claudio martins Ferreira
View full review

Everyone is right here, I am still following the owner of this company for getting my money back.This guy who name is John somehow will show up somewhere right ? He must be punish for doing this fraudulence to all people or companies like us.All drones that they are sending ( if they ship) to customers are not working,defective and very bad quality. If anyone got any solution I mean money back through court of justice or any solution for different way please let us know.


hi ibrahim, where are you From, I am preparing a justice demand for them, may be we can do it together. I want this page to have more visualization. after 8 months still don't have the products that I asked for.


Did you get anywhere getting your drones? If you did receive them did they work or meet the specifications they should have? We too have had a terrible experience with them and would like to talk with you.

@Azalee Jui

please fell free to contact me when you want the laws in South Africa are no so well enough for the one who demand. eperez@***.cl from Chile


You are correct Mr Ferrero. Their lies and deception is prolific and they are now under scrutiny by multiple injured parties. They will be brought to justice over the coming weeks / months by the Consortium who are persuing them for in excess of $840,000 in recovery of money which they have obtained by deception.


Do Not use this company. You will receive defective drones which are also physically incapable of meeting the specification they claim. This company is deceptive and fraudulent.


He has stolen my drone after I sent it for repair. How are you getting results with this con artist.


hi, can you tell us how is going on the legal injury for them? i will do the same, because, after 8 months still don't have what we asked for.

please let me know to show this as evidence. and how much money do you lost in US dollar?

View more comments (7)
#1080875 Review #1080875 is a subjective opinion of poster.
Airborne Drones Vanguard Rc Quadcopter
Reason of review
Damaged or defective
New Reviewer

Unreliable company do not do bussiness

Airborne Drones - Unreliable company do not do bussiness
Alert Airborne Drones Do not do business with this company - Airbone Drones, 37 Koeberg Rd, Cape Town, 7405, South Africa - After a payed in advance, only part of the items I bought, where delivered. Even the drone I received does not meet the specifications (see quotation attached), and is useless. My complaints always generate a lot of of excuses and promises, clearly with no intention of solving the problem. Only to postpone it. After almost a year the problems are still not solved because Mr. John James Geber (chap@***.co), +27 8* 550 ****, who runs the company is neither a scrupulous nor an ethical person. The drones he manufactures and delivery, unlike those advertised on his website, are deliberately of poor quality, and simply do not work. I repeat: DO NOT BUY AND DO NOT PROVIDE ANYTHING FOR THIS COMPANY BECAUSE YOU WILL BE FOOLED AND WILL LOSE YOUR MONEY.
View full review

WITHOUT PREJUDICE - This Company sells their drones under false claims of performance. They do not have a product that is even worthy of sustainable flight.

This is the case for every drone they have ever sold. Multiple international customers of theirs which have bought drones have been conned out of money and left without a product. There is a consortium which has been setup in pursuit of this company to bring them to account for their trading activities.

Airborne Drones in South Africa gives all its customers the run around to frustrate them with the intention to exhaust them into giving up their pursuit. The company's representatives basically lie.


Airborne Drones values its customers and always strives to always satisfy its' wide variety of 'blue-chip' companies across the globe. The UAV market though is a very new industry and satisfied customers are not always guaranteed.

We would like to make respond to Mr Ferreira's complaints and include the following extract of our last communication to Mr Ferreira in this regard:



Dear Claudio.


We refer to the above mentioned matter as well as your email letter dated 20 February 2017. ..... Whilst it is apparent from the contents of your aforesaid letter that your intentions remain to attack and defame the company, we believe that such an approach is counterproductive and far divorced from an individual whom seeks to resolve an alleged product issue. The salient facts relating to the matter are as follows: 1.

Upon notice of your dissatisfaction concerning alleged issues with your product, Airborne Drones facilitated the despatch of a technician to your country (Brazil) at the company’s expense, to assess and rectify any alleged issues; 2. Having conducted and documented the necessary tests (per our standards test) to ensure and confirm that all alleged technical issues were duly rectified, our technician requested that he return to South Africa (such request was made directly to you by both the technician as well as the company); 3. It is now common cause that you were unsatisfied with the aforesaid tests and therein demanded (telephonically and through electronic mail) that he remained in your custody to satisfy your preconceived form of testing the product; 4. You refused to allow the technician to return home on the above basis; 5.

Our technician, whom has subsequently returned, has provided our office with a report in which he is satisfied that during such visit, he was able rectify all technical issues which the product allegedly possessed. Considering the above the company is satisfied that it has fulfilled all its contractual obligations towards you. Should you however differ in your assessment of the matter and therein still maintain your stance (that the product still possesses technical issues), the company then in such instance suggests, in a final attempt to settle this matter amicably, the following: 1. You return the product to our offices in an unaltered condition; 2.

The company therein tenders to replace your allegedly defective system with a completely new system. We trust that you shall be guided accordingly in this regard and that sanity shall prevail.

We await your urgent response herein." CEO Airborne Drones (Pty) Ltd ..................................................................... We await Mr Ferreira's assistance and cooperation in this matter in order to fully resolve any outstanding issues..


Airborne Drones unreliable behavior:

See video that show the alleged “ready to fly” first test flight :

View more comments (2)
#1009789 Review #1009789 is a subjective opinion of poster.
Cape Town, Western Cape
Airborne Drones Rc Quadcopter
  • I was finacially damaged by doing bussiness with this company
Reason of review
Not as described/ advertised
Preferred solution
Full refund

Why Trust Reviews on PissedConsumer?

  • Professional auto and live moderation
  • 100% user-generated content
  • Equal opportunity and protection
  • Zero tolerance for fake reviews
  • Verified content

For more information read Blog article