Hello everyone,

So I have a question about flight termination/failsafe modes, what setup is everyone using?
I am looking for a failsafe device that will trigger a parachute in the event of signal loss and cut power to the motor (electric) or possibly the entire radio system together, or that can be manually triggered remotely in the event of a malfunction as what is required for the "Out Back Challenge" competition.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.


Views: 979

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Make the prize "1 Million dollars !", but have arcane rules that insure no winner?
How does this drive innovation ?
Some teams may find a solution that the contest did not anticipate, maybe it will improve UAV performance??
This is already done since 20yrs in EU.
Millions EUR flying to 'hi-tech' companies under conditions they employ at least 100 persons and growing.
So nothing new.
The universities and lawyers only contribute to the mix - they are government employees that are obligated to promote certain interests. If they are conscientious about their collective action - who cares, they share the responsibility being so numerous they rightfully feel untouchable.
Imagine what would happen if a pack of engineers were allowed to make something better than a national giant. A total reversal of Western World Order as we know it!
I think such contests are just a bait used for channeling the effort of the ppl that like to unite AND compete into something useless.
So does anyone know why they changed the rules?
Didn't know that it has changed until now but I guess it is so that no body wins or any one serious would attempt it :).
I can only speculate on what may have triggered the Outback Challenge rule changes. My guess is that the competition organisers are trying to ease up on the 5 second rule, and the staged withdrawal is a mechanism to avoid having to crash planes after 5 seconds of telemetry outage. I do think the organisers are genuinely trying to respond to feedback and make the competition better.


The proposal is a staged withdrawal scheme, where UAVs can return to a staging point and wait for telemetry to be re-established, and if that fails can return to base to attempt manual landing. The net effect of this proposal is that a UAV can potentially stay out of RF and visual contact for over 4 minutes. If the autopilot has lost its mind this could result in a UAV being quite a long way away. This is presumably what has triggered the geofence requirement.

I don't love the added complexity that the new rules bring; I believe systems that call themselves "safety" or "failsafe" should be simple, reliable and testable. This just isn't. I am hopeful that the 5 second rule will continue to be allowed - with a parachute this represents a simple, reliable and non-lethal mission termination system. 10 seconds would be even better, but you can't have everything.

The new rules are not yet approved by CASA, so not having any certainty is also trying.

Apologies for replying to my own post.

The oracle has spoken...

"Any aircraft that was eligible to fly last year can fly this year..."

The geofence is only required for those that choose to take advantage of the staged withdrawal thing. Apparently version 1.1 of the 2010 rules will be out shortly.
Good news!

Reply to Discussion


© 2019   Created by Chris Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service