Convoy following Video

[reedchristiansen]

Hello,

Procerus the company behind the Kestrel autopilot has launched a new web sight. http://www.procerusuav.com

There are links to their products along with some pretty neat videos showing multiple UAVs following behind a vehicle in a convoy support role.

http://www.procerusuav.com/gallery.php?textFile=txt.video3.txt

Hope you all enjoy it!

Reed

[Godseykj]

The auto landing video looked more like a controlled crash....

[reedchristiansen]

You should see Raven, Pointer, ...etc Land!

It makes that landing seem like a greaser.

Reed

[Bg~]

Pretty cool, but I'd me much more impressed if the videos showed the UAVs tracking the vehicle through a turn or stop. The videos all seemed to end right as the vehicle changed direction. Do they have this capability? Is the tracking image based or use the vehicle's position uplinked to the UAV?

[mlbco]

BG~,

Here is a link to some movies of my UAV performing convoy escort:

http://spyplanes.com/movies.html#convoy50

The high-speed segment shows what happens when the vehicle stops at a stop sign and the low-speed segment shows what happens when the vehicle moves slower than the UAV's stall speed. If you can handle a 20-30 MB download I can point you to a longer video with the tracked vehicle driving along roads with turns and the UAV following. Our system is based on GPS info uplinked from the moving vehicle. We also have an automatically aimed gimbal that tracks the vehicle. In both movies the video was recorded from a receiver inside the moving vehicle and I was driving the car and "flying" the UAV at the same time. The UAV doesn't need any user inputs when in convoy mode, you only need to adjust the camera zoom as desired. No waypoints are used, the plane just stays in formation with the car based on the uplinked GPS data. All of this was done 18 months ago, so the results are a bit dated. We haven't done much else with this capability since the interest in it was not great. We demonstrated it to the Army, Marines, and several private security companies, but no one wanted to deploy it.

Steve Morris

[reedchristiansen]

Pretty cool, but I'd me much more impressed if the videos showed the UAVs tracking the vehicle through a turn or stop. The videos all seemed to end right as the vehicle changed direction. Do they have this capability? Is the tracking image based or use the vehicle's position uplinked to the UAV?

The airplane cameras are fixed so the whole aircraft has to track the vehicle through the turns (Which it does). When the Vehicle comes to a stop, the aircraft will loiter around the vehicle and switch to side look camera. I will have the web guy put video up that shows the aircraft tracking the convoy through a turn.


Yes, the tracking is based on the convoy uploading its GPS position to the aircraft. Right now we are working on putting computer vision algorithms "in-the-loop" to make the system more robust and to work even in GPS denied environments like urban canyons.


Reed

[jeff2215]

Very nice products. To both Reed and Steve. What is your target audience for these products? Military or Government Municipalities? Have either of you sold your products to local governments for use within say the police departments? I find all of this to be interesting because I think that it offers many benefits to law enforcement for such things as search and rescue, crime prevention, etc. I would think there is going to be a very large market for this technology as it gets better. It seems like the costs are already reasonable, just not reasonable for the average joe. Thanks.

[mlbco]

Jeff,

UAV technology can't effectively be commercialized in the USA until the FAA figures out how we can fly legally. At the moment, you need to go through an extensive process to get permission to fly any UAV (large or small) in the national airspace. The cost overhead associated with obtaining permission poses a significant barrier to commercialization of the technology. Currently, the only potential customers are the military or companies that operate in foreign countries with more UAV-friendly regulations.

Thanks,

Steve Morris

[Vindication]

I'm not sure that the last post is entirely accurate. For smaller UAV's as long as they stay below 500ft AGL[Above Ground Level] I think they are fairly flexible. [aka you can do what you like]

Definitely the military is interested. I also believe that Law Enforcement could/will be for reconn type work and search and rescue applications.

-Vind

[mlbco]

Vind,

Unless you fly an RC plane for sport or recreation only (i.e. recreational, noncommercial use), you are not flying a "model airplane" as far as the FAA is concerned. Once you're out of the "model airplane" designation there are no altitude regions where you can legally fly. Listed below is some FAA info on the matter. You can search other threads in this forum to find similar discussions of how the FAA has come down hard on all UAV activities.

Steve


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
N 8700.25


10/10/03

Cancellation
Date:* 10/10/04

SUBJ:

INQUIRIES RELATED TO UNMANNED AEROSPACE VEHICLE OPERATIONS
*
1.* PURPOSE.* This notice establishes the Flight Standards General Aviation and Commercial Division, Operations and Safety Program Support Branch, AFS-820, as the Flight Standards focal point for coordination of information, procedures, and policy development for Unmanned Aerospace Vehicles (UAV) operations.* This notice directs Flight Standards personnel to refer all UAV inquiries to FAA headquarters, AFS-820.
2.* DISTRIBUTION.* This notice is distributed to the division level in the Flight Standards Service in Washington headquarters, to the branch level in the regional Flight Standards divisions; to the Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO); and to the Regulatory Standards Division at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center.* This notice is also distributed electronically to the division level in the Flight Standards Service in Washington headquarters and to all regional Flight Standards divisions and district offices.* This information is also available on the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Web site at:* http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/notices/N 8700-25.htm.
3.* BACKGROUND.* Requests for FAA Certificates of Authorization (COA) to operate
UAV-type aircraft are increasing for both civil and military applications.* AFS-820, in cooperation with the Air Traffic Service and other FAA organizations, will develop policy and procedures for operation of UAVs in the National Airspace System.* To do this, it is important that the scope of the operations, the type of vehicles used, and the applications being considered and developed are understood.* Historically, the military use of UAVs has had minimal impact on civil aviation. Authorization to operate these aircraft has been through the issuance of a COA in accordance with Order 7610.4J, Special Military Operations, dated November 3, 1998.
a.* COAs have also been issued for civil applications for proof-of-concept testing.*
b.* Air Traffic Service has issued these COAs in coordination with Flight Standards Service.
c.* UAV technological advances increase the potential use of such aircraft.* Environmental research, crop monitoring, and security applications are being considered for UAV applications.* To ensure a full understanding of the proposed uses of these vehicles and to ensure a consistent application of the policies developed for UAV application, this notice directs that all inquiries received by Flight Standards personnel concerning UAV operations be referred to AFS 820.* In addition, Flight Standards personnel, when contacted by someone from the Air Traffic Service or other FAA organization asking for concurrence with the requirements outlined in a draft COA for a proposed UAV operation, shall refer the request to AFS-820.
d.* The phrase “Unmanned Aerospace Vehicle (UAV)” is a universally recognized term that encompasses a vast spectrum of aircraft that are autonomous, semiautonomous, or remotely operated.* Many other terms are used interchangeably, some intended to be synonymous with UAV, while others apply a separate meaning.* For example, the term, Remote Operated Aircraft, has been used synonymously with UAV.* It also has been used to identify several high-altitude, long range UAV-type aircraft.* AFS-820’s intent is to document all use of, and develop policy for, all UAV-type aircraft, regardless of the marketing or design phraseology used.* Therefore, all inquiries using UAV-type phraseology are to be forwarded to AFS-820.* Examples include:* Unoccupied Aerospace Vehicle, Remote Controlled Vehicle, Remote Piloted Vehicle, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Radio Controlled aircraft, etc.
NOTE:* This notice does not apply to the recreational, noncommercial use of model aircraft.* It is not intended to inhibit or restrict the routine operation of model aircraft for recreational purposes.* (The Academy of Model Aeronautics, in part, defines model aircraft as weighing less than 55*pounds and being operated below 400 feet above ground level.)* Additional guidance for the operation of these aircraft is provided in Advisory Circular AC 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards, dated June 9, 1981.
4.* DISPOSITION.* Guidance for inspectors issuing, reissuing, and surveying UAV operations will be incorporated into Order 8700.1, General Aviation Operations Inspector’s Handbook.* This notice was developed by the Operations and Safety Program Support Branch, AFS-820.* Direct any questions regarding this notice or UAVs to AFS-820 by telephone, 202-267-3370, or FAX, 202-267-5094.
*
/s/
John M. Allen* for
James J. Ballough
Director, Flight Standards Service

[CenTexFlyer]

Jeff,

UAV technology can't effectively be commercialized in the USA until the FAA figures out how we can fly legally. At the moment, you need to go through an extensive process to get permission to fly any UAV (large or small) in the national airspace. The cost overhead associated with obtaining permission poses a significant barrier to commercialization of the technology. Currently, the only potential customers are the military or companies that operate in foreign countries with more UAV-friendly regulations.

Thanks,

Steve Morris

Steve,

I'd have respectfully submit that you are bit behind the curve on this one. The document you posted is over a year old and the people who authored that are now no longer the "office of primary responsibility". You might go check over in the forums at www.rcapa.net (http://www.rcapa.net) The information that we have received is that the FAA has taken a decided turn and are even looking at exemptions based on weight. We have gotten "interpretations" that allow us to fly in Class G airspace with no problems.

Gene

[mlbco]

Gene,

I don't have time to searc the entire RCAPA forum, can you post a link to the specific interpretation that the FAA has issued allowing autonomous flight in class G airspace? I have many customers who would like to take advantage of this if it is true.

Thanks,
Steve

[CenTexFlyer]

I'll get you started, then you can take it from there.....

http://www.rcapa.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=607

Again, respectfully, I would think that if it's important to your customers, then it would be important to research every available avenue and get the latest information. I say this only to stress that there are other sources out there (e.g. runryder, rcuniverse, etc) whose members have gotten interpretations from the FAA as well. This appears to be a VERY dynamic situation with the FAA.... relying on information that is a year old could be a questionable practice.

[mlbco]

Gene,

I checked out the link you suggested and also looked around the web site for additional FAA info and I can't find anything that invalidates what I originally stated. The FAA is mostly concerned about UAVs being able to "see and avoid" other man-carrying aircraft. They normally will not issue a COA (certificate of authorization) for operating beyond visual range unless you can demonstrate "see and avoid" capability using some other means, such as a chase plane with an on board RC operator, or a ground based radar to track and deconflict all nearby aircraft. There are no altitude regions that are exempt from the "see and avoid" requirement as far as I know. One of my customers operates in the national airspace with full FAA approval because they use a chase plane. This customer is in constant communication with the FAA regarding UAV operational requirements and I've heard nothing from them to indicate any change in status since the 2003 statement I referenced. I have several other customers who spend a lot of money dealing with the FAA to obtain COA's and I'm sure they'd like to know of an easier way to fly UAVs legally if there is one. Most of these customers are also in constant contact with the FAA and none have mentioned any change in status of the FAA's position on "see and avoid" and small UAVs.

I'm happy to change my opinion on this matter, but you'll need to help me by posting some definitive evidence that the FAA has changed its point of view on "see and avoid". I can't find any such evidence.

I can see how the FAA might choose to ignore hobbyists who operate within visual line of site and take photos from RC planes for money. There is very little difference between this activity and recreational RC flying, except for the exchange of money which makes it non-recreational. RC aerial photography is not the same as autonomous flight beyond visual range, which is what most of my flying involves. All of the interesting commercial opportunities that I've considered depend on flight beyond visual range and until the FAA allows it, I can't see a profitable business for commercial UAV operations in the US.

Steve

[reedchristiansen]

By request, we posted "The Turn".

This is a section of the convoy following where the vehicle being followed makes a 90 degree turn - the airplane follows.

http://www.procerusuav.com/gallery.php?textFile=txt.video3.txt

This is a low cost fixed camera (forward and side look) system in a Unicorn flying wing. By low cost, I mean the whole system RTF(airplane, autopilot, cameras, ground station, etc) is less the $10k. The endurance is around 1.5 hrs.

Reed

[Bg~]

Reed,

Just curious, what's the time required to go from a brand new in the box Unicorn to first flight (autopilot equipped, camera, etc)?

[reedchristiansen]

Bg~,

We have a high school kid build the airplanes up for us and install everything. He usually does a couple at once and can finish one in 10-12 hours.

That includes soldering up the antennias and cabling, then installing autopilot, camera, camera switcher, gps, ground plane, pitot system, 2 antennias...etc.

He has built quite a few so he is pretty effecient.

Reed

Reed,

Just curious, what's the time required to go from a brand new in the box Unicorn to first flight (autopilot equipped, camera, etc)?

[Zaviation]

UAV technology can't effectively be commercialized in the USA until the FAA figures out how we can fly legally. At the moment, you need to go through an extensive process to get permission to fly any UAV (large or small) in the national airspace. The cost overhead associated with obtaining permission poses a significant barrier to commercialization of the technology. Currently, the only potential customers are the military or companies that operate in foreign countries with more UAV-friendly regulations.

As of yesterday, 7 Dec 2005, what Steve Morris says is entirely accurate as confirmed by HQ FAA. Flying any model aircraft (UAV) for anything other than recreation is not legal in the United States without express approval on a case by case basis. They are not running around arresting prople but that does not make it legal. Those who have their own liability insurance will find out how useless it is if you get sued.

There are many interpretations of what the FAA will allow and what they won't. The fact is that if there is not a regulation or policy permitting an activity then it is not legal. The FAA is working on a policy for commercial use of small UAVs but it is not published yet. Therefore, the activity is not legal. Cut it any way you want or slice it however you please, it is still a fact.

John Zaner