All Posts (11086)

Sort by

3689631433?profile=original

http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/story/2014-12-31/photojournalist-arrested-after-using-drone-near-gatwick/

Seems like it wasn't handled particularly well at the time, surely common sense would allow the pilot to land before getting all aggro.

The pilot claims to have CAA permission, although I can understand why there were complaints given the situation and what he was trying to record.

I wonder if he really was within the rules. Seems even with claimed permissions and training, it can still get controversial.

There is a chap near to me that is getting a lot of coverage, I think he is amerture, but still flaunting FPV guidlines flying around town.

Lets not let 2015 be the year of the idiot that ruins our hobby, not saying the people I mention are or aren't idiots, but It does seem to be becoming more common that these appear in the UK news.

Read more…

3689631511?profile=original

Night flying small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are set to deliver a brand new perspective of Sydney's fireworks spectacular later on this evening.

The Australian Broadcasting Association will be using two sRPAS to assist in the live coverage of Sydney's world famous New Years Eve celebration.

Australian Telecommunications company Telstra will also be flying a pair of specially outfitted sRPAS equipped with 6 GoPros (up, down, front, back, right, left) to provide 360-degree views from above as part of a promotional campaign - with footage from the flight available for viewing via a downloadable app following post production.

Excerpt from itnews.com.au

It (the ABC) plans to send two purpose-built quadcopters equipped with HD cameras and broadcast links 1000 ft above Sydney Harbour, which will feed live video to feature in its annual New Years Eve broadcast, alongside footage from nine harbourside cameras and a manned helicopter.

The remote aircraft will be flown by licenced pilots and will hover within the firework exclusion zone, a spokeswoman explained to iTnews.

The broadcaster has obtained approval from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to fly the drones at 1000 ft during the event.

"We're thrilled to be able to use this exciting new technology during our broadcast, to give audiences a spectacular and unique view of the world-famous Sydney New Year's Eve Fireworks," said the ABC’s special events boss Justin Holdforth.

The Telstra drones will also fly at 1000ft and feature six HD cameras each. Telstra will make its footage available after the event via a custom Sydney NYE app, to viewers in Australia and overseas.

Read more…

Commercial Drone Markets: 2014 Year in Review

3689631381?profile=original

This post also appears in The Market | sUAS News

New Judging by the headlines, 2014 turned out to be the year for drones. I referenced in Tweets a total of 503 articles with the word ‘drones’ in the headline last year.  A Google search brings up about 61.4 million results referring to ‘drones.’  Granted, that search includes references to military and hobby drones, but it still delivers higher results than other years.  

If the first theme of 2014 was the rise in popularity of drones, the second theme was how hamstrung the commercial markets are in the U.S. because of a lack of regulations. But there’s more going on than the buzz and frustration with FAA progress; in this post, I’ll review what I think were the five most significant commercial market trends for drones in 2014.

Read more: http://droneanalyst.com/2014/12/30/commercial-drone-markets-2014-year-review/

Read more…

Blue lithium batteries

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1467995/federal-government-bans-shipments-of-lithium-metal-batteries-on-passenger-flights

Federal government bans shipments of lithium metal batteries on passenger flights

Measure is among updates to the Transport of Dangerous Goods Regulations.

OTTAWA, ON, Dec. 30, 2014 /CNW/ - The Honourable Lisa Raitt, Minister of Transport, today announced a suite of amendments to Canada's Transport of Dangerous Goods Regulations (TDGR). The updates include a ban on transporting lithium metal batteries as cargo on passenger flights in Canada, as well as new labelling and Emergency Response Assistance Plan (ERAP) requirements for certain dangerous goods.

In 2014, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) adopted a ban on the shipment of lithium metal batteries as cargo aboard passenger aircraft. The main concern is that if ignited, they can cause any nearby batteries to overheat and catch fire as well. Most passenger airlines in Canada have already voluntarily banned lithium metal batteries as cargo.

The prohibition comes into effect on January 1, 2015, to comply with the ICAO ban. It applies to all shipments of lithium metal batteries as cargo on passenger planes within Canada. It does not apply to batteries already contained in or packed with equipment, but only to those packaged and shipped separately. The ban will not affect travellers' personal devices such as laptops and smartphones, which use lithium ion batteries.

Other updates to the TDGR include:

  • Incorporating Protective Direction (PD) 33 into the TGDR. Introduced in April 2014, PD33 ordered rail shippers of ethanol, petroleum crude oil, gasoline, and other petroleum products to have an approved Emergency Response Assistance Plan (ERAP) in place to ensure proper emergency response in the event of an incident or release involving these flammable liquids.
  • Adding ERAP requirements for petroleum sour crude oil and Alcohols N.O.S. (typically used to classify ethanol in the US), which were not previously included under PD33.
  • New United Nations (UN) product numbers for petroleum sour crude oil and biomedical waste.

 

Transport Canada held extensive consultations on the amendments with stakeholders from across Canada. The updates will align the TDGR with UN recommendations and other international norms.

Quick Facts

 

  • The new ban under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (TDGR) applies only to lithium metal batteries shipped as cargo on passenger aircraft.
  • It does not apply to batteries already contained in devices, therefore passengers with medical equipment are not affected by the ban.
  • The U.S. has already banned the transportation of lithium metal batteries as cargo on passenger flights.

 

Quote

"These updates are welcomed by stakeholders because they promote harmonization and the proper identification of dangerous goods. They will help improve public safety and reduce the risk of accidents while streamlining and clarifying regulatory requirements for shippers and carriers."
The Honourable Lisa Raitt
Minister of Transport

 

Related Products

  • Backgrounder: Lithium Metal Batteries
  • Backgrounder: ERAPs/PD33

 

Associated Links

Current federal acts and regulations governing the transport of dangerous goods:

 

Transport Canada is online at www.tc.gc.ca. Subscribe to e-news or stay connected through RSS, Twitter, Facebook,YouTube and Flickr to keep up to date on the latest from Transport Canada.

This news release may be made available in alternative formats for persons living with visual disabilities.

 

Backgrounder
Lithium Batteries

Lithium batteries are dangerous goods, much like gasoline, propane, and sulphuric acid. In Canada, the shipping and importing of lithium batteries are subject to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 and its Regulations.

There are two main kinds of lithium batteries:

A lithium metal battery is usually non-rechargeable, contains metallic lithium, and features a higher energy density than other non-rechargeable batteries. Lithium metal batteries are often used in calculators, pacemakers, hearing aids, remote car locks and watches.

A lithium ion battery is rechargeable, does not contain metallic lithium, and features high energy density. A lithium polymer battery is considered a type of lithium ion battery. Lithium ion batteries are used in consumer products such as cell phones, electric vehicles, laptop computers, power tools, and tablets.

While most lithium batteries are safe, some have overheated and caught fire. Once ignited, they can cause any nearby batteries to overheat and catch fire as well. These fires are difficult to put out and produce toxic fumes.

The new ban under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (TDGR) applies only to lithium metal batteries shipped as cargo on passenger aircraft. It does not apply to batteries already contained in devices, therefore passengers with medical equipment are not affected by the ban.

Air carriers that service remote communities, particularly in the North, will be able to apply to Transport Canada for an Equivalency Certificate, subject to strict safety precautions, in cases where cargo-only flights are not available or feasible.

All designs and types of lithium batteries must meet the requirements of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria to be shipped safely. Shippers and importers must meet the requirements set out in the TDGR for the handling, offering for transport, transporting and importing of lithium batteries in Canada. The requirements vary by mode of transport.

December 2014

 

Backgrounder
Emergency Response Assistance Plans (ERAPs)

On April 23, 2014, the Minister of Transport issued Protective Direction (PD) 33 requiring anyone transporting certain flammable liquids by rail tank car in Canada to submit an Emergency Response Assistance Plan (ERAP) to Transport Canada. PD33 applies to substances such as petroleum crude oil, gasoline, and other petroleum products that did not previously require an ERAP.  An ERAP must be in place if even a single tank car is transporting one of these substances. Shippers and importers had until September 20, 2014, to comply.

ERAPs help local emergency responders at an accident site by providing them with 24-hour access to technical experts and timely assistance by industry response teams with specialized equipment. The ERAP must include a detailed description of the actions a shipper or importer will take in the event of the actual or imminent release of a dangerous substance.

Prior to approving an ERAP, Transport Canada must assess its effectiveness. Among other criteria, applicants must demonstrate their ability to provide technical advice; the response capabilities they can bring to the scene of a flammable liquids emergency; and their knowledge of firefighting and access to equipment to support first responders. 

The updates to the Transport of Dangerous Goods Regulations (TDGR) incorporate PD33 into the TDGR. They also add two additional shipping names to the ERAP requirement, to capture sour petroleum crude oil and ethanol transported under the name "Alcohols, N.O.S".

The TDG Emergency Response Task Force was also announced by the Minister on April 23, 2014. Its role is to conduct further research, assess, evaluate, and make recommendations to advance and make improvements to the ERAP program, with a primary focus on the transportation of flammable liquids by rail.

December 2014

 

SOURCE Transport Canada

 For further information: Ashley Kelahear, Director of Communications, Office of the Honourable Lisa Raitt, Minister of Transport, Ottawa, 613-991-0700; Media Relations, Transport Canada, Ottawa, 613-993-0055

Read more…

Market Survey/ What is needed?

3689631287?profile=originalLooking for feedback from the community. We currently build unmanned vehicle for military and commercial applications in the USA. Our current commercial units are obviously very similar to the consumer drones.

What if any features are community members looking for in a RTF consumer drone?

We currently develop our systems under IRAD funds so this is not a Kickstarter type program.

Examples:

Multi-Rotor: Longer Endurance, Installed Video Links, Foldable, More payload capability, Ethernet based? Most of these examples are givens.

Fixed Wing: Larger payload capability, longer endurance, etc? We're getting ready to release a fixed wing system with up to 3lbs. of belly and nose mount payload capability.

Maybe the answer is the market is already flooded and there isn't a need.

Any feedback would be appreciated

Best

Bill D.

Read more…

UgCS is used by Santa's present delivery service!

We would like to thank you all for being with us, using and commenting on our ground control software. Your feedback helped us greatly. During this year the number of our Beta testers and users of Open version rose from few to more than thousand. Most of them members of DIYDrones community.

During December we saw also first clients for our UgCS ONE commercial version. Special thanks for them on showing trust in us with their money.

Make your dreams come true in 2015 with help of www.ugcs.com next year, just like "New Year's Present Delivery Service did!

Read more…
T3

Some tests on GPS, geotagging and stitching accuracy

Hi all,

I want to share some results of comparisons between different GPS modules as well as different approaches for geotagging and stitching images based on APM:Copter log files.

3689631231?profile=original

CAM_TRIGG_DIST (blue) vs. adjusted coordinates (green). Stitching is based on corrected coordinates.

 

The background is that we were aiming for a tool, which would allows us to check the image and geotagging quality immediately after completing a survey mission. So, in case of any camera triggering or geotagging errors (as well as image quality problems) one can repeat the mission again with different settings without having to wait for any complex and time consuming processing in the office. Additionally, I was interested in the positional accuracies one could expect from repeated survey missions and with different GPS modules. Hence, this post focuses on different aspects of positional accuracy. It provides a short summary of our experiments. It is not a scientific study and most of the tests were not repeated. So this is just intended to be a rough guide. Anyway, I hope it will be helpful to some of you.

1)        A comparison of the PDOP (Dilution of Precision) values between different common GPS modules for the Pixhawk autopilot

The crucial component for geotagging images as well as for geo-referencing in general is the GPS receiver. There are mainly 2 different u-blox systems currently in use together with the Pixhawk: the LEA 6H  and the NEO M8N.

For a test I mounted the following three GPS on my copter:

3689631252?profile=originalTest setup: 3DR LEA 6H, VR M8N and CSG M8N

The major difference between the two M8 modules is that the CSG M8 has a larger antenna (there is a „mini“ version with a smaller antenna available as well) whereas the VR M8 has an additional amplifier. VR M8 was connected to the Pixhawk as GPS1 and the 3DR 6H as GPS2. The CSG M8 was connected to my Laptop via USB directly. I used Mission Planner to monitor the VR and 3DR GPS modules and u-center to monitor the CSG one. Because AC3.2 is reporting is the PDOP and not the HDOP, we need to compare the AC3.2 HDOP with the PDOP reported in u-center. It is also important to set the "Min SV elevation" to the same values. To compare the performance I tested all three modules in parallel. In a first test I compared the performance outdoor and indoor (close to a window).

Results of the outdoor test

  • The LEA 6H always shows less satellites and a higher PDOP compared to the other two (~1.7 vs. 1.1)
  • The VR M8 is comparable to CSG M8 when the "Min SV elevation" of the latter is set 5deg. If "Min SV elevation“ of the CSG is set to 10deg the VR is slightly better. This is why I assume that "Min SV elevation" is set to 5deg on the VR M8.
  • The CSG M8 was the first that got a 3D Fix and it was better for quite a while. Interestingly, the position accuracy of both the VR and the 3DR increased significantly after re-booting the Pixhawk. This is a little strange to me but I experienced this more than once.

3689631170?profile=original

Outdoor test: CSG with Min SV elevation set to 5°

Results of the indoor test

  • After waiting 15 min the CSG had a 3D Fix.
  • After 20 min the 3DR came alive (gpsstatus2 = 3).
  • Even after 40 min the VR still showed gpsstatus2 = 1.
  • When setting the "Min SV elevation" to 5 on the CSG the results went a little worse and were more noisy.

The indoor results are reproducible. That's why I went outside - I thought the VR M8 was dead but luckily that is not the case. Roberto from VR reckons that the internal pre-amp could go in saturation if there is some interference.

Remarks

  • always use an M8 instead of a 6H
  • the CSG M8 is the most sensitive
  • this must be due to the larger antenna even though the VR has an amp
  • the reason why the results went much better directly after rebooting should be investigated, since this is not the case for the CSG one (or at least I haven't realized before) and because it should result in better positional accuracies at least in the beginning of the flight. Since, the VR and the 3DR GPS were connected to the Pixhawk the problem might also be related to the autopilot. Can someone confirm this behavior?
  • the outdoor accuracy seems better and less noisy if "Min SV elevation“ is set to 5°. However, with this setting the receiver might be more affected by multipath errors as shown by the higher noise for this setting in the indoor test. Hence, for security reasons 10° might be the better choice.
  • There was no obvious difference if a GPS antenna was covered with the 3DR GPS cover or not.
  • I haven’t tested it with the VR M8 but the CSG M8 is very sensitive to interference from the bluetooth telemetry module - even if mounted >20 cm away from the GPS. The 3DR LEA is less sensitive.
  • All tests were conducted without an additional shielding of the GPS module. A first test with an additional shielding between the VR M8 and the Pixhawk et al. shows marginally higher number of satellites (20 instead of 18) and a little lower DOP values. But this has to be verified. I also have to test if there is a reduction regarding the bluetooth interference.

2)         Camera trigger delay and direct image stitching

For many applications a simple image overlay is sufficient. The advantage compared to the generation of orthophotos is that the mosaic can be generated quickly in the field. However, even stitching can be relatively time consuming - especially with large image sets and if image registration is performed using automated image-matching techniques. Hence, we were aiming for an approach that provides georeferenced image mosaics that rely on the GPS coordinates only.

To achieve this aim, we

Hence, the CAM entries in the log file can be used for geotagging the images. The GPS used in all following test was the Virtual Robotics NEO M8N. To achieve optimal image quality the camera settings have to be adjusted for every single image. This results in some delay between triggering the camera and shooting the image.

 

Direct stitching results

The following two figures (I moved the first one to the top of the post) shows the coordinates when the camera is triggered (blue) vs. automatically corrected coordinates (green) where individual velocities and shooing delays have been factored in. The stitched image based on the corrected coordinates is shown in the background.

The mosaic based on CAM_TRIGG_DIST is corrupted. This is due to the fact that CAM_TRIGG_DIST was set too small in this test in relation to speed and camera trigger delay. Hence, some images were not taken. Normally, there is only some offset. Synchronizing the image time stamp with CAM_TRIGG_DIST time will also help to reduce this effect in case images are missing.

3689631149?profile=original

CAM_TRIGG_DIST (blue) vs. adjusted coordinates (green). Stitching is based on CAM_TRIGG_DIST.

Remarks

The comparison between the stitched images shows that

  • Geotagging has to be performed carefully to reduce artifacts
  • NADIR gimbals provide an easy way to reduce perspective distortions and guarantee the best viewpoint for many applications (e.g. SAR, Precision Agg)

Processing takes only a fraction of time compared to generating an orthophoto. Stitching is completed within minutes on normal laptops.

3)         Positional GPS accuracy of repeated surveys

What is most interesting is the positional accuracy between directly stitched mosaics of repeated surveys. Therefore, we repeated missions over the same area at two consecutive days. Georeferencing is performed independently for each image and only based on the GPS coordinates provided by the VR M8. Additional ground control points and image matching routines were not used.

We also tested different cameras so the results show a mixture of potential errors.

 

Direct stitching results

The red points in the following image mark same position of different flights.

3689631183?profile=original

RGB mosaic, day 1, flight 2

The following screenshots show the potential geo-referencing accuracy without any ground control points and after applying a linear shift (no scaling or rotation) to the images based on Google Earth data. The orthoimage as well as the DSM are perfect. The simple overlay and the mosaic show a small offset/distortion (Some more precise measuring/shifting should result in even better positioning.). Yet, this should be ok for many applications. Because it was snowing during parts of the flight the image quality is rather poor.

 

3689631269?profile=original

Orthophoto

3689631197?profile=original

Stitched mosaic

Remarks

The results show that in average the PDOP reported by ArduCopter is a quite good estimator of the offset between single images within one mission (although it is called HDOP for unknown reasons). Positional errors can be seen within each mosaic but most obvious in the RGB mosaic.

The offset between the different flights/cameras in the IR/RGB example is up to 4 m and not linear over the entire mosaic. But, as expected, the offset is smaller at the end of the mission indicating that a longer warm up period (and/or reboot?) should reduce the offset in the beginning of a mission. This is why in many cases the directly stitched mosaic fits the true orthophoto quite well and the overall offset is mostly consistent during a mission. The offset can easily be determined using Google Earth and thus corrected. If this is possible and sufficient, ground control points are not necessarily required to provide positional accuracies < 1.5m for a directly stitched mosaic. Yet, orthophotos should be preferred. However, processing takes much longer.

Apart from some small pitch and roll offset from NADIR (calibration error) there is often some small misalignment of the camera so the images might be rotated which needs to be determined and then yaw needs to be adjusted before stitching.

 

4)         AC3.2 „issues“

Regarding AC3.2 there are some things that need to be tackled. These are rather minor „bugs“ but might sum up to some significant offsets of single images and/or the entire mosaic or other inconsistencies:

  • For consistent stitching the exact flight altitude must be known for each image. However, the „altitude“ currently used in AC3.2 is based on baro measurements. The problem is that there can/will be a drift in atmospheric pressure during the flight which can sum up to several meters over longer flights. See link for an example from a 40 min survey.
  • I am not sure if this has a real influence. There is some timing jitter (missing samples) which occurs at least with both M8N (not sure about the 6H) GPS modules. Yet, an measurement offset of only 200ms might produce a considerable spatial offset especially at higher speeds. This jitter also results in some twitching.
  • In addition there is some clock drift or communication latencybetween the GPS module and the Pixhawk. This can also lead to spatial offsets depending on the log file entry one relies on for geotagging.

 

Summary

For surveys where the highest precision is required orthophotos and ground control points are the way to go. This is also true in areas with stronger relief. However, in many cases directly stitches images georeferenced using common GPS modules are sufficient. What is required is proper geotagging and a stabilized NADIR gimbal. This involves good GPS modules as well as specific CHDK scripts, log file analysis and stitching routines. The advantage is that stitching can be processed in field within minutes, which makes it suitable for SAR missions as well as quick overviews for agricultural purposes.

To overcome some positional inaccuracies, image-matching techniques might be applied. However, there is a trade-off regarding processing time. A real boost in accuracy can be expected if RTK DGPS systems (read Piksi) are fully integrated and operational.

Any comments are welcome!

Best regards and a Happy New Year,

Thorsten

PS: A big thank-you goes to all the Ardupilot devs for all of their help and suggestions!

Read more…

LOHAN team touches down at Spaceport America

3689631092?profile=originalA couple of weeks back, myself, David Patterson of EDGE Research Laboratory and our plucky Playmonaut went to check the lie of the land at Spaceport America.

3689630939?profile=original

We're still waiting on FAA approval for the launch of our Vulture 2 spaceplane in New Mexico, but we've now got all the information we need for when the big day arrives.

3689631204?profile=original

Thanks to the spaceport's operations manager Bill Gutman for the guided tour, and there are more details on our trip right here.

Read more…
Moderator

3689631078?profile=originalI dusted off theNoodle Copter last night for a quick flight with reporter Joe Vazquez of KPIX news.  They had a story based on the new  knowbeforeyoufly.org site.

It's great to see these kinds of guidelines being made available to beginning flyers who might not know the parameters of safe and legal flight.  Hope this helps avoid the "Mayhem and Bloodshed in the Skies" after-Christmas posting!

Couldn't get the video to embed (oh woe, all sites with custom flash players!), but the video link is here.

http://eastbay-rc.blogspot.com/2014/12/eastbay-rc-joins-faa-in-encouraging.html

(update: now with  beginner-friendly title!)

Read more…
3D Robotics

AVC 2015 announced

Sparkfun just announced some details on the 2015 Autononomous Vehicle Competition. Key details

  • Sat, June 20
  • At the new Sparkfun HQ, not the reservoir where it was held for the past two years
  • Aerial is copter-only -- no planes
  • There will be a "no GPS" bonus, because GPS is too easy!
  • Many of the 3DR team will be there coaching kids/student teams, but we probably won't compete directly. Best to keep it focused on amateurs, which is in the Maker spirit of the competition.

Read more…
Developer

Steps towards S&R in Japan

We seem to have a lot of natural disasters here in Japan (eruptions, mud slides, earthquakes) and like everywhere else we are counting on UAVs to help out in these situations by producing 3D maps to improve "situational awareness" so that rescue efforts can be used effectively and eventually to actually find people.

The video above (and below) are some more steps towards this by EnRoute (3DR retailer in Japan) and Tohoku University that I work with on Search & Rescue projects.  Some of the important bits:

  • Test Site was Sakura-jima in Kyushu, Japan.  It's an active volcano but shouldn't be confused with On-take that claimed 57 lives a couple of months ago.
  • EnRoute QC 730 quadcopter which uses 340KV motors and massive 6-cell Lipo to achieve over 40min of flight time under normal conditions
  • ArduCopter 3.2 on Pixhawk
  • Mapping mission took 20min, the copter traveled a total of 8km including a 1.2km climb at 10m/s.  The battery was at 56% after the mission was complete.
  • X-Link video system (1.2Ghz)
  • 2.4Ghz telemetry system based on ZigBee with very high gain antenna but no antenna tracker.  You can see the telemetry connection remained pretty solid the entire time which was a major improvement over previous tests.  Japan has strict regulations which don't allow the use of the RFD900.
  • The camera was a GoPro Hero3+ Black Edition
  • The 3d reconstructions software was Agisoft Photoscan which does a good job of stitching together the images even when there's a large change in altitude.

My hope is that over the next year or so we get to the point where we can:

  • Include a companion computer with a modified version of Tridge's Outback challenge software to automatically recognize people or objects that stand-out from the background.
  • Send groups of vehicles (probably mostly copters) to cover more area in the same amount of time without adding anymore people to the flight crew.
  • Incorporate IR cameras for night-time flights because rescue efforts currently seem once it gets dark leaving people stranded on the mountain until morning.
  • Get the vehicles travelling closer to the face of the mountain using LIDAR sensors and Terrain Following.
  • Find people by narrowing in on their cell phone signals (?)

Thanks to EnRoute and Tohoku University for including ArduCopter and the APM/Pixhawk in their S&R efforts.

Read more…
Moderator

giphy.gif

It seems that the argument is between those who want to require a commercial pilots license and those who believe a private pilots license is sufficient for flying quadcopters.

"Enabling private pilots to work commercially would set a precedent, the inspectors wrote, boxing in the FAA while it developed a permanent set of drone regulations. They also noted that private pilots are twice as likely to be involved in fatal accidents as commercial pilots."

Story here.

Reported instances of headshaking, sighs, looks of general annoyance on the uptick.

Read more…
Moderator

Its small rule NPRM day (maybe)

FAA-Puma1-1024x558.jpg?width=350

Expect the FAA to finally start the three month small rule NPRM process today Monday the 22nd of December. But remember we have been here before many times. Should it happen I can finally remove the Miss-O-Matic from sUAS News. I believe the Small UAV Coalition of which Chris Anderson was a founder is having a telephone call with the FAA today so some of the clues are there. At sUAS News we expect the 333 requirements to form a key part of things moving forward so I am adding them below for reference.

Should it not happen today this post will serve as a reminder of another missed opportunity.

1. The UA must weigh less than 55 pounds (25 Kg), including energy source(s) and equipment. Operations authorized by this grant of exemption are limited to the following aircraft described in the proprietary FOPMs: HexaCrafter HC-1100 and Aeronavics SkyJib 8 v.2 Heavy Lifter. Proposed operations of any other aircraft will require a new petition or a petition to amend this grant.

2. The UA may not be flown at a speed exceeding a ground speed of 50 knots.

3. Flights must be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above ground level (AGL), as indicated by the procedures specified in the operator’s manual. All altitudes reported to ATC must be in feet AGL.

4. The UA must be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC at all times. This requires the PIC to be able to use human vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, as specified on the PIC’s FAA-issued medical certificate.

5. All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The VO may be used to satisfy the VLOS requirement, as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS capability. The VO and PIC must be able to communicate verbally at all times.

6. The operator’s manual is considered acceptable to the FAA, provided the additional requirements identified in these conditions and limitations are added or amended. The operator’s manual and this grant of exemption must be maintained and made available to the Administrator upon request. If a discrepancy exists between the conditions and limitations in this exemption and the procedures outlined in the operator’s manual, the conditions and limitations herein take precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, the operator must follow the procedures as outlined in its operator’s manual.

The operator may update or revise its operator’s manual. It is the operator’s responsibility to track such revisions and present updated and revised documents to the Administrator upon request. The operator must also present updated and revised documents if it petitions for extension or amendment. If the operator determines that any update or revision would affect the basis for which the FAA granted this exemption, then the operator must petition for amendment to their exemption. The FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) may be contacted if questions arise regarding updates or revisions to the operator’s manual.

7. Prior to each flight the PIC must inspect the UAS to ensure it is in a condition for safe flight. If the inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft is prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance has been performed and the UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight. The Ground Control Station, if utilized, must be included in the preflight inspection. All maintenance and alterations must be properly documented in the aircraft records.

8. Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect the UAS operation or flight characteristics, e.g. replacement of a flight critical component, must undergo a functional test flight in accordance with the operator’s manual. The PIC who conducts the functional test flight must make an entry in the UAS aircraft records of the flight. The requirements and procedures for a functional test flight and aircraft record entry must be added to the operator’s manual.

9. The operator must follow the manufacturer’s UAS aircraft/component, maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements. When unavailable, aircraft maintenance/ component/overhaul, replacement, and inspection/maintenance requirements must be established and identified in the operator’s manual. At a minimum, the following must be included in the operator’s manual:

a. Actuators / Servos

b. Transmission (single rotor)

c. Powerplant (motors)

d. Propellers

e. Electronic speed controller

f. Batteries

g. Mechanical dynamic components (single rotor)

h. Remote command and control

i. Ground control station (if used)

j. Any other components as determined by the operator

10. The Pilot In Command (PIC) must possess at least a private pilot certificate and at least a current third-class medical certificate. The PIC must also meet the flight review requirements specified in 14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on his/her pilot certificate.

11. Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of motion picture filming (or similar operations), the PIC must have accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51 (b), a minimum of 200 flight cycles and 25 hours of total time as a UAS rotorcraft pilot and at least ten hours logged as a UAS pilot with a similar UAS type (single blade or multirotor). Prior documented flight experience that was obtained in compliance with applicable regulations may satisfy this requirement. Training, proficiency, and experience-building flights can also be conducted under this grant of exemption to accomplish the required flight cycles and flight time. During training, proficiency, and experience-building flights, all persons not essential for flight operations are considered non-participants, and the PIC must operate the UA with appropriate distance from non-participants in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119.

12. Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of motion picture filming (or similar operations), the PIC must have accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51 (b), a minimum of five hours as UAS pilot operating the make and model of UAS to be utilized for operations under the exemption and three take-offs and three landings in the preceding 90 days. Training, proficiency, experience-building, and take-off and landing currency flights can be conducted under this grant of exemption to

6

accomplish the required flight time and 90 day currency. During training, proficiency, experience-building, and take-off and landing currency flights all persons not essential for flight operations are considered non-participants, and the PIC must operate the UA with appropriate distance from non-participants in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119.

13. Prior to any flight operations authorized by this grant of exemption, the PIC and visual observer (VO) must have successfully completed a qualification process, as outlined in the operator’s manual. As this is a requirement stipulated by the operator, the test must be developed and implemented by a qualified person designated at the sole discretion of the operator. A record of completion of this qualification process must be documented and made available to the Administrator upon request.

14. Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of motion picture filming (or similar operations), a flight demonstration, administered by an operator-approved and -qualified pilot must be successfully completed and documented. This documentation must be available for review upon request by the Administrator. Because the knowledge and airmanship test qualifications have been developed by the operator, and there are no established practical test standards that support a jurisdictional FAA FSDO evaluation and approval of company designated examiners, the petitioner will conduct these tests in accordance with the operator’s manual.

15. The UA may not be operated directly over any person, except authorized and consenting production personnel, below an altitude that is hazardous to persons or property on the surface in the event of a UAS failure or emergency.

16. Regarding the distance from participating persons, the operator’s manual has safety mitigations for authorized and consenting production personnel. At all times, those persons must be essential to the closed-set film operations. Because these procedures are specific to participating persons, no further FSDO or Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) approval is necessary for reductions to the distances specified in the petitioner’s manuals. This is consistent with the manned aircraft procedures described in FAA Order 8900.1, V3, C8, S1 Issue a Certificate of Waiver for Motion Picture and Television Filming.

17. Regarding distance from non-participating persons, the operator must ensure that no persons are allowed within 500 feet of the area except those consenting to be involved and necessary for the filming production. This provision may be reduced to no less than 200 feet if it would not adversely affect safety and the Administrator has approved it. For example, an equivalent level of safety may be determined by an aviation safety inspector’s evaluation of the filming production area to note terrain features, obstructions, buildings, safety barriers, etc. Such barriers may protect non-participating persons (observers, the public, news media, etc.) from debris in the event of an accident. This is also consistent with the same FAA Order 8900.1, V3, C8, S1.

18. If the UAS loses communications or loses its GPS signal, the UA must return to a pre-determined location within the security perimeter and land or be recovered in accordance with the operator’s manual.

19. The UAS must abort the flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies in accordance with the operator’s manual.

20. Each UAS operation must be completed within 30 minutes flight time or with 25% battery power remaining, whichever occurs first.

In addition to the conditions and limitations proposed by the operator, the FAA has determined that any operations conducted under this grant of exemption must be done pursuant to the following conditions and limitations:

21. The operator must obtain an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) prior to conducting any operations under this grant of exemption. This COA will also require the operator to request a Notice to Airman (NOTAM) not more than 72 hours in advance, but not less than 48 hours prior to the operation.

22. All aircraft operated in accordance with this exemption must be identified by serial number, registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification (N-Number) markings in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be as large as practicable.

23. The operator must develop procedures to document and maintain a record of the UAS maintenance, preventative maintenance, alterations, status of replacement/overhaul component parts, and the total time in service of the UAS. These procedures must be added to the operator’s manual.

24. Each UAS operated under this exemption must comply with all manufacturer Safety Bulletins.

25. The operator must develop UAS technician qualification criteria. These criteria must be added to the operator’s manual.

26. The preflight inspection section in the operator’s manual must be amended to include the following requirement: The preflight inspection must account for all discrepancies, i.e. inoperable components, items, or equipment, not covered in the relevant preflight inspection sections of the operator’s manual.

27. Before conducting operations, the radio frequency spectrum used for operation and control of the UA must comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or other appropriate government oversight agency requirements.

8

28. At least three days before scheduled filming, the operator of the UAS affected by this exemption must submit a written Plan of Activities to the local FSDO with jurisdiction over the area of proposed filming. The 3-day notification may be waived with the concurrence of the FSDO. The plan of activities must include at least the following:

a. Dates and times for all flights

b. Name and phone number of the operator for the UAS filming production conducted under this grant of exemption

c. Name and phone number of the person responsible for the on-scene operation of the UAS

d. Make, model, and serial or N-number of UAS to be used

e. Name and certificate number of UAS PICs involved in the filming production event

f. A statement that the operator has obtained permission from property owners and/or local officials to conduct the filming production event; the list of those who gave permission must be made available to the inspector upon request.

g. Signature of exemption-holder or representative

h. A description of the flight activity, including maps or diagrams of any area, city, town, county, and/or state over which filming will be conducted and the altitudes essential to accomplish the operation

29. The documents required under 14 CFR § 91.9 and § 91.203 must be available to the PIC at the ground control station of the UAS any time the aircraft is operating. These documents must be made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request.

30. The UA must remain clear and yield the right of way to all other manned operations and activities at all times (including, but not limited to, ultralight vehicles, parachute activities, parasailing activities, hang gliders, etc.).

31. UAS operations may not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 CFR § 1.1. All operations must be conducted under visual meteorological conditions (VMC). Flights under special visual flight rules (SVFR) are not authorized.

32. The UAS cannot be operated by the PIC from any moving device or vehicle.

33. The UA may not be operated less than 500 feet below or less than 2,000 feet horizontally from a cloud or when visibility is less than 3 statute miles from the PIC

34. The UA may not operate in Class B, C, or D airspace without written approval from the FAA. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of the geographic center of a non-towered airport as denoted on a current FAA-published aeronautical chart unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s management is obtained, and the operation is conducted in accordance with a NOTAM as required by the operator’s COA. The letter of agreement with the airport management must be made available to the Administrator upon request.

35. Any 1) incident, 2) accident, or 3) flight operation that transgresses the lateral or vertical boundaries of the operational area as defined by the applicable COA must be reported to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) within 24 hours. Accidents must be reported to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) per instructions contained on the NTSB Web site: www.ntsb.gov. Further flight operations may not be conducted until the incident, accident, or transgression is reviewed by AFS-80 and authorization to resume operations is provided.

 

Read more…

Erle-brain, an open hardware Linux autopilot

3689630908?profile=original

Hi everyone,

Some of you might have heard about the work we did with BeaglePilot porting APM to Linux both in the hardware and software side. Work we presented at LibreCon 2014 last month. 

I am happy today to announce that after several months of improvements, flight tests and pre-series with manufacturers we are launching a commercial Linux hardware autopilot based on this work: Erle-brain.

Erle-brain is sold at 269 € and puts together a BeagleBone Black (rev. C) and the PixHawk Fire Cape in a single package that weights about 110 grams and includes 25+ sensors. The hardware designs are open to anyone that wishes to improve them.

3689630888?profile=original

The autopilot has a 4 GB eMMC flash memory that comes pre-flashed and provides:

  • Linux 3.8 kernel compiled with the PREEMPT option (best results we measured)
  • Debian Wheezy file system
  • ROS Hydromedusa
  • mavros ROS package
  • APM running natively in Linux (and linked with ROS through mavros)
  • preconfigured daemons for launching everything automatically, WiFi dongles support

3689630971?profile=original

Erle-brain has been successfully tested in copters, planes and rovers. Thanks to the contribution of many there're drivers for most of the sensor and we keep working hard to provide support for even more accessories. Here are some of the ones we've been playing with:

3689630921?profile=original

Expect more to come :).

Besides doing some hardware hacking we've also been putting time in documenting everything. The APM wiki is great and we love it but we wanted to do it our way so we've spent quite a bit of time creating GitBooks that should provide a walkthrough no matter which is your technical level:

 

3689630994?profile=original

We expect to come up with more material in the next months. Thanks everyone for your support and contributions. We will keep working hard to create amazing Linux autopilots.

Best regards,

Víctor.

Read more…

A handy kit to control APM/Pixhawk vehicle systems

Dear All,

Thank you for your compliments and your general appraisal of our previous station builds. We've received dozens of e-mails and PMs both congratulating on our development in this field, but also asking for advice and help in DIY and semi-professional builds of similar field gear. There are no trade secrets here, we still know didley-squat, but we are always keen to learn, so please, feel free to contact us if you think we can help. 

As a general message, most of our critics were encouraging us to come up with something more ready for general consumption, rather than just showcasing $$$$$ custom builds. We have had very much the same idea for a long time, but building up know-how, tooling and part sourcing for even limited series production takes quite an effort, especially from such a small team as ours.

Well, here you are. This is something that we think was really missing from all the available control equipment out there. It's a modular GCS that caters for both autonomous and FPV flight operations in general. It's based on the handiest of Peli case formats, the 1400.

3689630742?profile=original

The stations and controllers we've seen so far were either built into an enclosure, or they were hand-held consoles with bits sticking out and wires hanging about, regardless of whether they were carefully designed or just DIYed together for practicality.

The plus side of installing any field gear in a rugged industrial enclosure is that it doesn't need a case to carry it around, and it can be all up and running without too much field installation work. The minus side is the added weight and the extra dimensions of such a system. Hand-held controllers on the other hand are nearly always delicate pieces with the joyticks and toggle switches prone to bend or break off, not mentioning the LCDs, which are the flimsiest parts of all instruments.

3689630776?profile=originalThat is why I always thought that a truly portable and lightweight controller must be self-contained, yet wearing a second protective skin that fits it like a glove. For this to happen, first you have to pick the right glove, then fit the instrumentation right into it. This is mostly because it is nearly impossible to create really tough enclosures in small series, whereas we already have some idea of how to build the internal container.

The current system is made up of two Peli 1400 enclosures, one of them being the telemetry computer, the other containing the direct FPV control tray and all small accessories, like antennas and cables.

3689630789?profile=original
The telemetry case

This is our custom rugged industrial computer outfitted specifically for UAV operation. We have been making various versions of it for hazardous areas and other serious field applications, but now it's part of our UAV control gear. The features:

  • Self-contained weather-proof PC hardware with removable BT keyboard/touchpad combo
  • Separate active USB subsystem and power block for extended peripheral operation
  • Rugged USB connections on top for high power WLAN modules, telemetry and 3-4G modems
  • Optional modem integration within the same enclosure
  • Optional AV RX and frame grabber integration for downlink video overlay
  • Windows 8.1 operating system
  • Both capacitive touchscreen and Wacom® tablet digitiser functions for accurate waypoint definition
  • 11.6” WXGA (1366x768) IPS panel with 600 nit sunlight readable screen, auto brightness adjustment
  • Scratch resistant Corning Fit Glass, optional low reflectance 3M gloss or matte additional armour screen protection
  • Battery life: 10 hours max. with all guns blazing
  • Intel® Atom™ Z2760 Dual-core CPU @ 1.8Ghz
  • 2GB RAM
  • 64GB internal SSD, internally expandable with 64GB microSD, or through USB
  • WLAN 802.11 b/g/n
  • Bluetooth V4.0
  • 2MP Front Camera
  • GPS, G-Sensor, Light Sensor, Gyroscope, E-compass, Hall sensor
  • Combined charger for both PC hw and the USB subsystem (PCM protected)

As DroidPlanner already looks like a viable option for full blown autopilot programming and telemetry with APM/Pixhawk, we also build this with cheaper Android Tegra hardware to very similar physical specifications. The screen is then a 10" 1920x1200 IPS panel with the same 600 nit brightness, although the Android type doesn't have a Wacom® digitiser, there's only the touchscreen. However, we install a capacitive stylus in the holder for similar reasons, namely for more accurate points and less smudges on the screen, but it also helps when you're wearing gloves.

3689630814?profile=originalThe Bluetooth keyboard/touchpad combo is a fully sealed industrial beauty from iKey, and it is removable from the tray when not needed, just to be replaced by the pilot FPV tray or the cameraman's tray for a seated operator. There's of course our customary mounting plate installed at the bottom of the telemetry case for a tripod or dashboard mount.

The FPV control tray

This prototype again is set up for APM/Pixhawk operation, hence the rotary flight mode switch. The payload layout and the controls are configured for full function camera control, including absolute and relative pan-tilt micro joystick and tilt pot, separate focus/shutter, zoom, video start/stop switches. We've built a very flexible CAD model of the controller, just to be able to accomodate many different control layouts for the individual client.

3689630795?profile=originalThe current features:

  • Self-contained direct RC vehicle controller with integrated 2G4 RC TX and 5G8 AV RX
  • 8ch or 16ch OpenTX RC hardware with standard 2-axis joyticks, client specified switches, pots and other controls
  • FrSky TX module built in, all other PPM compatible RC TX modules, including LR types are optional
  • Direct sunlight readable transflective 10" 1024x600 monitor with matte screen
  • Frame buffer protection against bluescreening
  • Built in black box SD card based DVR with external remote controller
  • Integrated folding brackets for cross-over type harness mount or neckstrap (total weight: 1880g, little over four pounds)
  • Min. 5 hours of total battery endurance with 55Whs of PCM protected Li-Po power
  • Omni RC TX antenna with vertical or horizontal polarisation, omni AV RX antenna with circular polarisation (RHCP)
  • High gain directional antennas for both RC TX and AV RX are mountable and optional

These controls are only standard dustproof types, but we can also make the entire tray IP 65-67 level waterproof, just as the telemetry PC is right now. Conversely, we can also supply the telemetry case with no IP, but since it has a slightly different industrial lineage, it seemed like a waste to dumb it down...

Since many videographers and film crews work with two or even three cameraship operators, we're also making additional modules available for this system. We've already designed a cameraman's version with a 3-axis joystick, large follow focus hand wheel, iris control knob, gimbal speed controls, etc.

3689630836?profile=originalEven though there's an awful lot of electronic and RF gear under the hood here, there's no sign of signal interference, nothing, it just works. It's also very solid mechanically. The side flexibility in the CF folding brackets is just perfect for a cross type harness fit, while keeping the tray absolutely firm on your belly, thus providing a stable "desk" for precise control of the sticks.

3689630648?profile=originalThe ergonomics behind the different screen installation is due to the fact that you can only work with a transflective or reflective screen in the horizontal position out in the sun. There is no way for any high nit screen to match the impact of direct overhead sunlight at such a straight angle. For the telemetry console the more upright 114-117° angled position of the screen makes it possible to use the body of the enclosure as a hood, which in turn makes the use of high nit IPS screens in a deep recess possible.

Certainly, we could install a Windows or Android tablet in place of the transflective screen in the FPV control tray, but currently there are no such tablets available at any reasonable price in the market. Apart from their cost, the few rugged pieces like the Panasonic or the Getac tablets are already quite heavy, and they still need extensive customisation for UAV field operations, which would make them even heavier and bulkier. We've seen some high nit tablet integration attempts for similar control tray assemblies lately, but they only look good and work until they meet their match, the Sun.

We've been using and installing quite a number of different transflective screens for direct sunlight operations. This FPV tray can take any size of them between 5.6" and 10.1". Naturally we wanted to see whether we can install the biggest one in the prototype and it works...

There are, of course, many possible further variations and evolutions to this system, some of them already thought of by us, some of them will come from you, I'm sure.

Azjeg

http://diydrones.com/photo/albums/a-handy-kit-to-control-apm-pixhawk-vehicle-systems

Read more…

1st Drone in Nevada Test Program Crashes in Demo

http://youtu.be/lNtz3JHDd28

The FAA has given permission for Nevada to authorize unmanned aerial vehicles to fly. Today there was a ceremony to watch a demonstration flight. During the hand launch the craft did a wing tip stall and landed very rough on its nose a.k.a. crash. 

For more see 1st drone in Nevada test program crashes in demo

Read more…