InnoFlight announces Cerberus Triple Redundant Autopilot Systems
The advanced Jupiter JM-1 multicopter autopilot is now fully redundant with the release of the Cerberus Triple Redundant Autopilot Module by InnoFlight.
Taoyuan, Taiwan (R.O.C) – April, 2016
InnoFlight (INF), the leading manufacturer of flight control systems, UAV and stabilised camera gimbals in Taiwan today announced the release of the world first triple redundant Cerberus multicopter autopilot system. The company has over ten years’ experience in design and development of flight stabilised system for VTOL type aircrafts as well as over thirty years combined experienced in UAV operations.
“We are very excited to announce the release of the Cerberus Triple Redundant autopilot system. Cerberus enable up to 5 standard Jupiter JM-1 flight controller and theirs built-in IMU’s, GPS, and Compasses to work together as a true triple redundant flight control system.
The Cerberus redundant autopilot system not only provides the obvious increase in safety but when comparing to a single Jupiter JM-1, our triple redundant system can process sensor data from all three Jupiter JM-1 thus greatly increase the accuracy and performance of the system.
The Cerberus enhanced redundant system not only enables redundancy among autopilot modules as a whole but also their internal sensors. As long as two Main Control Units and sensors from any module are functioning, the Cerberus would continue to provide normal flight control operations.
To understand the benefit of a true triple redundant system we can look at this simple example; if the reliability of a typical autopilot is 1/1000, then the reliability of the same autopilot in a triple redundant arrangement would be 1/1000 x 1/1000 = 1/1,000,000. If the same system is multiplied up to a quadruple redundant system, then the reliability will go up to 1/1 billion and so forth.
In fact, our Cerberus redundant system CAN bus technology can support up to 5 Jupiter JM-1 giving you unprecedented reliability never seen before.”
INF is expected to begin shipping the Cerberus in July of 2016. Customers can see the Cerberus fully functional prototype on display at NAB, and AUVSI this April/May.
Comments
Yes, yet John Arne's earlier point on triple redundancy is a good one. Whatever those probabilities end up being for each individual device, they can't just be multiplied as is to come up with a reliability estimate for the whole system, when you have one device in the system that is not redundant ...
That said, it may still be much better that just using one. Interesting product!
Something about the release of product with the word "prototype" on it makes me chuckle!
Aside from that, flight controller failure per se is probably minimal in a UAV. UAV/drone/flying lawn mowers are inherently unreliable exponentially. The MTBF is almost wholly a factor of who is doing the building and with what components. The quality of electronics in flight controller are past the point where the electronics in a flight controller fail.
This system appears this system attempts to address hardware failure; redundant hardware. However, this particular design actually exacerbates the possibility of failure by the packaging; use of interconnecting wires. A much more reliable system could/would have been made by putting ALL of the logic on a single PCB and skipping the wires...
Additionally, if we are talking software failure, then this system is of no benefit unless each CPU is running different flight control software...
Happy flying!
I think you guys misunderstood. We used 1/1000 as a random number to help explain redudancy.
Let's face it. Realistically, if you are able to have a 1000 flights without any kind of incident. Then you are probably just doing some basic flights at the same place over and over again.
In my opinion the expectation of "no crashes" is part of the divide between experienced pilots and people who just impulse bought a drone and think/expect the high price tag translates to 'crash safe'.
But the reality is, if you do regular flights you are going to crash, period. And most likely it is going to be some stupid user mistake on your part, or something happening in the flight environment that you did not expect.
And yet still, the Hub is probably only 1/1000 reliable. I really don't get these systems.
Redundant sensors make some sense. But I don't get redundant processors. They really don't fail often at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_engineering#Reliability_t...
"Reliability is defined as the probability that a device will perform its intended function during a specified period of time under stated conditions."
"if the reliability of a typical autopilot is 1/1000" then don't fly with it, reliability should rather be in the 99% range :)
And yet still the #1 cause of crashes will be pilot error.
So what happens when the Cerebus hub module fails?
Triple redundancy systems traditionally have three sets of electronics that can all operate complete independent. And some variant of ring bus communication, so that all devices can talk to each other regardless of which unit or cable that fails.
Impressive, though I found the flight controller and sensors are by far the most reliable components of a UAV. Typically power supply (battery or regulator), speed controller, motor, wiring, connectors, are by far more prone to failure. Do you have a plan to include more than the FC?
Hopefully, we can achieve the same level of redundancy and performance with the Pixhawk FC. Thanks for sharing Ryan.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next