Hexes and octocopters are "safer" than quads - since they can (with appropriate controllers) cope with any one motor/controller out, and some combinations of multiple motors out. (Anyone flying expensive DSLR cameras uses these for that reason.)

There are some quad copter controllers that try to deal with single motor failures, but they're mostly experimental (at least on the hobby end to the space) since they need to be able to reverse a motor, which most motor controllers used in these applications are not build to do.

I recall a quadcopter control mode that spins the entire craft quite rapidly, exchanging yaw control for altitude control.

Found a vid: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bsHryqnvyYA

Without even clicking that I knew it was gonna be ETH Zurich... They do pure magic. Pretty much nobody _else's_ quadcopters can survive a motor failure... (But it'll come, presumably. Amazing software is cheaper than redundant hardware, after all...)

Not to detract from how cool this work is but the preconditions for this to work are quite far-reaching. It is based on bridging the reality gap by having that gap approach zero - by removing error sources from the real world rather than model and account for them. Same goes for other ASL work.

I don’t expect a service delivery company to use hobbyist components. That’d be s recipe for disaster. One would think they’d put something like this though its paces before testing it out in public. I’d expect they buy aerospace grade components where possible and build their own to spec where needed.

I fully expect most "service delivery companys" to buy their drones from the same Alibaba vendors that share bike ad scooter companies buy from...

Losing them, crashing them, having people steal them or throw them in a lake - those are things to include in your VC funded "operating costs" and to mitigate/offload the risks in your TOS...

(Small print: "The delivery customer shall be wholly and solely responsible for any damages and costs incurred by their delivery and any company equipment used in the completion of the customer's delivery, including but not limited to the drone crashing into a playground full of children." Just like Tesla's abrogation of responsibility when their "autopilot" software is driving the car they sold you...)

Not sure how things work in Switzerland, but at least in the US I think these aircraft would be under the purview of the FAA who likely would require some rigor. Likely something similar in CH.

The market is too young for this kind of process. Regulators around the world are smart enough to realise you can't expect drones to follow classic aeronautical design and safety processes right now, you would just stop dead the whole field.

So while they gently introduce such rules (mostly centered around see and avoid for now, also identification), the main way they use to ensure safety is restrict where and who can fly them.

You know they can't be trusted, so you don't fly them above sensitive areas. As processes mature, reliability increase and trust is gained, you will see drones expand the airspace in which they are allowed. It's already happening for BVLOS (beyond visual line of sight) flights which requires a waiver from the FAA in the US (with paperwork such as risk assessment, collision tests on mannequins and so on), as well as specific equipment/processes.

These aircraft are in fact manufactured by a US company (Matternet).

There's no aerospace grade for most of the components. It's either custom made for the most critical/unique components, hobbyist parts (who else needs 4" propellers), or cots that are designed for other applications.

Pretty much no one besides DJI has the scale for custom made, except on a few select components. Drones are still in their infancy, those companies are still trying to see if they have a business model and improving/creating technologies. You can't expect mature processes from this environment.