Airborne DronesDrone (UAV) maker

1 Review updated:


Airborne Drones

Do not do business with this company - Airbone Drones,

a) 37 Koeberg Rd, Cape Town, 7405, South Africa -,
b) 112 Loop Street 2º floor, Paramount Towers, Cape Town, South Africa, [protected],
c) Rockford Component Site Shireoaks Road Worksop Nottinghamshire S80 3HA United Kingdom [protected]

After a payed in advance, only part of the items I bought, where delivered. Even the drone I received does not meet the specifications, 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 ([protected], +[protected], 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. See this video that shows how the “ready to fly Vanguard drone” was delivered:

Mar 02, 2017
Sort by: UpDate | Rating


  • Ai
      Apr 07, 2017

    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
    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."

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

    0 Votes

Post your comment