After confirming the failsafe function and getting our FPV system set up, we wanted to push auto navigation beyond the confines of our field.  We set up a mission involving 3 loops, a small confirmation loop followed by 2 larger paths formed by a total of 12 waypoints. Even though FPV was at its limits, we were confident the APM would bring the Shrike home and it did! 
 
Next week we will be testing auto navigation further in some more volatile weather to see how it handles unexpected gusts and cross winds.  See you then!
 
-Trent & Nick

Views: 2758


Distributor
Comment by Dany Thivierge on June 21, 2012 at 10:19pm

Nice again! 

Now you need telemetry to see it live on the mission planner map, it reduce the stress factor seeing that it follow the mission path! 

Dany

Comment by Scott James on June 21, 2012 at 11:38pm

Hi Guys, Here is a great little video explaining antennas and how they work.

May help with your FPV setup?

https://vimeo.com/8826952 

Cheers!

Comment by Brian Donovan on June 22, 2012 at 1:06am

Keep up the good work guys, again appreciate the posts and your vids!

Comment by Dr Mike Black on June 22, 2012 at 1:38am

Congratulations guys!

Excellent work.

If you are interested, you can have a read about our experiments with the APM's predecessor.
 (Which is stll flying missions for us today as it happens)

Cross Country Flight

Isn't it nice when things work as planned!??

Also, its very hard to express the fear and elation (we can hear the stess in your voice) when testing, that we feel whens she is airbourn, and praying that its all set well.

Congratulations again.

Kind regards,

Mike.


Distributor
Comment by UnmannedTechShop.co.uk on June 22, 2012 at 2:52am

Great Stuff, looking foward to seeing the next video already!

Comment by Paul Marsh on June 22, 2012 at 4:17am

This is very cool, but I was under the impression that we had to keep our aircraft within range of the ability to take manual control, regardless of the presence of FPV equipment.  Has something changed in that regard?

Comment by Paul Marsh on June 22, 2012 at 4:31am

This is what is stated on DIY Drones with regard to flying model aircraft:

"Q) What are those restrictions for non-commercial UAVs flying without a COA?

A: You MUST do the following: 1) Stay below 400ft. 2) Maintain a "pilot in control", which is to say that you must always be able to take manual control and fly the aircraft out of danger (in general, that means maintaining line-of-sight contact with the aircraft). 3) Stay away from built-up areas."

I think if there has been a general acceptance that either FPV or live telemetry have reached a point of reliability such that it is considered having the ability to take manual control, that should be stated as such in these guidelines.  If this is not the case, we also need to be clear about that here.

Comment by Manu on June 22, 2012 at 4:39am

Always nice to see your videos guys, looking forward the "antenna" test!

Comment by Paul Marsh on June 22, 2012 at 5:15am

@Trent -- I might have misinterpreted your note about keeping the Shrike at the limits of "FPV."  If you meant visual-line-sight with ability to take manual control, than I think all is well.  I did not watch your video entirely, so maybe there is clarification in there.  Thanks.


Moderator
Comment by Michael Pursifull on June 22, 2012 at 6:13am
Paul - its not our job here in the community to enforce the rules of part 97, but if it were, I'd expect someone to actually watch the video before raising fine legal points (which isn't very productive to begin with)

Perhaps you missed the fact that they ran a course where the plane was within about 1km at all times, try used both FPV and a spotter, the plane was within radio control at all times, and they had previously tested (on camera, no less) that their system reliably performs RTL if it loses range to the transmitter.

Except in very clear cases, I believe the most civil approach is to assume your fellow members are following the laws and regulations. Keeping range with an FPV transmitter is not in part 97, and given the full context of the flight, even if it were this communities responsibility to question the finer details of the FAA's view on this flight, I don't see where the questions you raised have any merit.

Comment

You need to be a member of DIY Drones to add comments!

Join DIY Drones

© 2017   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service