Non Military Use UAV?

[HoverMonkey]

I am wondering where to get more information about USA based MAV groups, competitions, even if there are any Govt. sponsorship for builders here in the US.

I can think of lots of great uses for them including:
- Finding people who are lost? (We had many hikers recently lost on a mountain who froze to death because people on foot couldn't reach them) Many people are lost and not found.
- Detecting illegal campfires or early detection of forest fires
- just for fun & competition

It would be great if there was an X-Prize type of MAV competition for something that finds lost hikers (SAR), spots illegal campfires, can flying low altitude, avoid other air traffic...maybe a new FAA flight zones open to UAV/MAV flights posted for general aviation to know about (there is certainly the same thing for Military flight zones...so open up some space for UAV/MAV and make it publicly avail.).

I've always been interested in MAVs but the technology was always too expensive and out of reach. It seems nowdays it's affordable and there is even Open Source sites with info.

NOTE: This is an edit from my orig. 1st posting. I realized my first attempt was off-base and needed the edits.

[O.L. Adcock]

"Who knows it might be you it rescues someday...not you it taps your phone and takes a picture of you speeding."


Being retired military, I think you are fully aware that they are not wasting their time and our money on piddly BS as you suggest. Others reading this may not, so it's irresponsible to even suggest it in a public forum. Agencies budgets are such they have to try to use the funds they have in the most effective way possible. The Forest Service, (dept of ag), for example spends 70% of their budget fighting litigation over controled burns to fight the fires you suggest. Hell of a waste of money isn't it! Being a private pilot, opening up more airspace to amature UAV's would either decrease open airspace for civil aviation or make it more dangerous and costly to control. Which would you prefer?

"Sure would be nice to get momentum for a Govt. funded, sponsored,"....folks throw around the words government funded as if the money magicly appears. It's "our" money coming from taxes. Open YOUR wallet and get it done! Meanwhile the military is doing the work you, through elected officials, tasked them to do and it doesn't include being interested in who's speeding or who's sleeping with who. I assume you are an American but it's hard to tell with the "numero uno" under your name, we speak english in this country. Enjoy the spin off of technology all around you, much of it would'n be here if it wasn't for the military and NASA along with your freedom to voice such misguided notions.....O.L.

[HoverMonkey]

are not wasting their time and our money on piddly BS as you suggest. Others reading this may not, so it's irresponsible to even suggest it in a public forum. .


Why did you think that I was suggesting that?

[Magician]

I guess I'm asking where's the X-Prize Super MAV competition

HoverMonkey,

The X-Prize was not funded by the government, it was done by private individuals who put up prize money gathered from corporate sposorship and individual donations. The largest sponsor was the Ansari family which is why it became the Ansari X-Prize. So, if you feel that a competition for MAVs would spur growth in the industry then come up with a goal, establish some rules and gather the funding to get folks to compete for the prize. You can even call it the HoverMonkey M-Prize. But I guess it's easier to complain than to act......

Chris

[zlite]

"I assume you are an American but it's hard to tell with the "numero uno" under your name, we speak english in this country.
That was uncalled for.

HoverMonkey may not have expressed it quite as well as he could, but his broader point is a good one. Any efforts to accelerated the current FAA rulemakings on a regulatory framework to allow safe commercial and amateur UAV use in the national airspace would be a good thing. We don't need funding, we just need permission and helpful guidelines to avoid conflict with others. The technology is democratizing, as witnessed by this forum, but the attention it's getting with the powers that be has not kept pace.

Let's keep the dialog civil here. In the big scheme of things, we're all on the same side.

BTW, we are planning such a private UAV contest (starting with an indoor competition for kids, and then going outdoors). Details here (http://diydrones.com/profiles/blog/show?id=705844%3ABlogPost%3A9089) .

[O.L. Adcock]

Hovermonkey, "Why did you think that I was suggesting that?"...That's my opinion on your entire post! :) The "military/government" has done more to save peoples lives then any, yet you sure find a lot of fault with them. Just a little insignificant example...It was the department of defense that put GPS into place. How many has that prevented from getting lost? How many injured have been able to use a cell phone or radio their lat long to rescuers because of GPS? You can bet if you get hurt on Mt. Hood, it''ll be 3 or 4 military folks putting their lives on the line and several million dollars worth of public assets on the line to to get you out. UAV's aren't as useful as manned aircraft for the uses you suggest....O.L.

[HoverMonkey]

HoverMonkey,

The X-Prize was not funded by the government,

Chris

[no longer applicable]

[O.L. Adcock]

zlite, Maybe so! :) "PC" to me is "personal computer". I'm all for opening up developement as much as possible and if relaxing regulations at no cost and no danger to civil and commercial aviation lets do it. I don't think it's that simple however. Might be though...A simple 400' AGL limit maybe?

"HoverMonkey may not have expressed it quite as well as he could,"...Darned right he didn't.Injecting BS political over tones will spin me up quick..........O.L.

[HoverMonkey]

Hovermonkey, "Why did you think that I was suggesting that?"...That's my opinion on your entire post! :) The "military/government" has done more to save peoples lives then any, yet you sure find a lot of fault with them. Just a little insignificant example...It was the department of defense that put GPS into place. How many has that prevented from getting lost? How many injured have been able to use a cell phone or radio their lat long to rescuers because of GPS? You can bet if you get hurt on Mt. Hood, it''ll be 3 or 4 military folks putting their lives on the line and several million dollars worth of public assets on the line to to get you out. UAV's aren't as useful as manned aircraft for the uses you suggest....O.L.

... and now I can realize I too maybe read into posts more than what was intended...

As a life-long Republican, not afraid to admit that publicly, I really do not feel this should be a Political thread. At all.

I read this post as very much trying to inform me with what I asked and I appreciate the time to write/post it. Thank you.

Now, about the rescue, Mt. Hood (exactly was what I was thinking of), yes, imagine the costs?? Please realize I do not imply don't send the military, don't send people to rescue. I'm just saying how much cheaper and faster could a MAV/UAV designed to detect IR or some other source for identifying a human could have worked on the same task as sending hundreds of humans for millions of dollars into harms way....a competition, the free exchange of the ideas (just like this forum) is a great way to get minds working on these problems.

I say leave the military to do the military work...for finding lost hikers and all the other uses I say let the general population take a stab at it and open doors to this type of research and forums and make it easier.

I mean bottom line I hate feeling like i'm breaking the law just trying to design or build a MAV/UAV because of all the red-tape and regulations around flying it. Why should I feel that way? If there was a flying field for it, even in another state, and a competation for it, and help for it...how cool would that be...

I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm asking to be shown where it does so I can take advantage of it...if it does...

[HoverMonkey]

"HoverMonkey may not have expressed it quite as well as he could,"...Darned right he didn't.Injecting BS political over tones will spin me up quick..........O.L.

Ya, I have a lot to learn with my writing that is not about Personal Computers....I tend to just try and throw the meat of the message in and not try and read every angle...and do often find my assumption that people will try and read it the best possible way (instead of the worst or in-between)...

Totally my fault...but now moving forward...are we heading in the right direction. Thoughts about getting the general public into this (assume without risking safety or property and all that)...for the good of the general public like for non-military (not spin-off).

I really don't want a billion dollar predator drone searching for hikers...how about a 100.00 MAV and we send out about 1,000 of them to cover just a very small area at low altitude? If they hit something they weigh 20g no harm no foul...I'll offer to let them hit me (20g limit on weight though ;] )...

So, where are these programs? Where's the contests? Where's the information how to get into it as a civilian? If there are none why not, lets get some going? It sure would be great to hear from non-military or ex-military people out there...if they exists...

[O.L. Adcock]

Nuff said, and I'm sorry I went off on you HM..... In A-6's we used the DRS on many search and rescue missions as well as keeping track of what Mt. St. Helens was up to obscured by weather. I'd sure rather see us spend our money on that kind of development then some other things we spend our money on. The technology is there, just need the desire and will to use it. The wider the use is, the lower the costs. I can see where the FAA is concerned, the idea of sharing airspace with small hard to see, "blind" aircraft is frightening. Sorry, not "PC" again..."visually impared"! :).....O.L.

[Magician]

Sure would be nice to get momentum for a Govt. funded, sponsored, even just approved way to get interest in having build contests and competitions open to the general public to create this sort of thing. ....
I guess I'm asking where's the X-Prize Super MAV competition for something that finds lost hikers, spots illegal campfires

HoverMonkey,

I guess this is why I thought you meant that the government should sponsor a contest for MAVs. Above are two lines from consecutive paragraghs. So, don't be surprised if this leads folks to put this train of thought together. About the Mt. Hood rescue operation, there were a few small UAVs that were sent there but they were kept grounded by the same winds and weather that the helos were grounded by. But, at least it was tried.

There is a place for UAVs in civil search and rescue and other applications, but the FAA has put up a big hurdle that has to be overcome. Gotta love an organization that says "don't do it unless you follow the rules" and then have no rules ready to be followed!

Chris

[clolson]

zlite, Maybe so! :) "PC" to me is "personal computer". I'm all for opening up developement as much as possible and if relaxing regulations at no cost and no danger to civil and commercial aviation lets do it. I don't think it's that simple however. Might be though...A simple 400' AGL limit maybe?

I had a situation where my gps reported my altitude as -2000 feet MSL (below sea level) so the thing started climbing to get back to it's target altitude. Establishing a 400' AGL limit doesn't necessarily mean an aircraft will actually stay in those limits even if it is trying to.

I support carving out a chunk of the airspace for UAV's to operate, but at the same time, there are so many possible failure modes and all it takes is a short loss of communication or a firmware bug or sun spots or just about anything to send one of these things off on an unintended route or to an unintended destinate.

I think all these problems can be addressed so UAV's can be operated safely, but if we have 100's or 1000's of groups all starting from scratch on hobby budgets with hobby equipment, at least a few of those groups are going to have mishaps and learn some lessons the hard way as they progress on their journey towards a highly reliable UAS.

And if I was an FAA person with a mortgage and hopes of a long career, I'd be extremely cautious about what I signed off on. I think our current situation is understandable, but we need to keep pushing for reasonable and safe uav use of our airspace.

I think that just like the military gets to have their own chunks of airspace where they have complete control (the FAA has zero jurisdiction) perhaps the FAA needs to establish a few UAV operation areas around the country. A civilian pilot will avoid an MOA so they don't get an f-16 flying up their tail pipe or have to do an emergency landing in a field full of unexploded ordinance. In the same way, they could also avoid a few UAV-OA's scattered in out of the way places so they don't take a 50 lb R/C plane through their windshield. That wouldn't necessarily address the issue of deployment, but it would help those of us who are trying to develop and test systems for civilian uses ... such as ocean debris location and removal:

http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=7496023&nav=menu55_2_2

(Note: they really made a mess of the remote video, but did a nice job on the rest of the story.)

Regards,

Curt.

[HoverMonkey]

HoverMonkey,

I guess this is why I thought you meant that the government should sponsor a contest for MAVs. Above are two lines from consecutive paragraghs. So, don't be surprised if this leads folks to put this train of thought together. About the Mt. Hood rescue operation, there were a few small UAVs that were sent there but they were kept grounded by the same winds and weather that the helos were grounded by. But, at least it was tried.

There is a place for UAVs in civil search and rescue and other applications, but the FAA has put up a big hurdle that has to be overcome. Gotta love an organization that says "don't do it unless you follow the rules" and then have no rules ready to be followed!

Chris

Heheh, exactly the thought process I'm trying to start...thanks for the comments...

Yep, but our newer better SUPERMAV can fly in 100mph blizzards and find a cell signal, human body from a mile away...we just haven't built it yet...what we have now just isn't up to the task.

Totally, FAA needs to be a part of the solution not part of the reason why SUPERMAV hasn't been built/flown yet. I'm thinking small...Airplanes hit birds all the time. Make something smarter than a bird and that will do less damage just in case...

"Smarter than a bird" meaning it will avoid planes not fly into them...easy enough. Look at "Tiny2.1" autopilot on Paparazzi...using GPS, IMU, maybe some radar (i.e. let "it" see the plane and avoid it not wait for a pilot to see it and avoid it...). Maybe FAA could help make it easier for UAV/MAV with intelligent plane avoiding logic to fly. Not so hard to make something that sees something and avoids it...it is 2007 not 1967...the tiny CPU exist, the brains to write the code exists, the rules to allow it don't...

I just somehow feel it coming and want to not go there...please do NOT bring up what this technology could do in the wrong hands...it makes as much sense as going to a gun forum and bringing up the same subject...assume good people, with the best intentions for this SUPERMAV only here for this thread...

[HoverMonkey]

Some more thoughts...

the first planes were not perfect but still flew...your average person started aviation. Because someone's existing code read their UAV was -2000' is a problem with their code/UAV not a general issue with all UAV. That's what filtering is for. You're last reading was approx 300' agl then you get a -2000 your software should toss this out...read from your ground proximity radar and determine you are still in fact flying...your barometer should report no sudden drop in barometric pressure..

There are existing aviation rules out there. Pilots can in fact do whatever they wish and simply have to obey them. So, make a UAV/MAV obey whatever rules are setup. They are just robots. No better or worse than their design/programming. Your code could be reviewed, or at least before you fly your schematics approved or ??? Let's not think the worst of those that we encourage to innovate.

There could simply be penalties for flying things that do not conform to rules setup for MAV/UAV. Maybe you have to get it "certified" or at least register it along with documentation on how you plan to keep it from flying into things or hurt people...if the documentation is reasonable then you get a green light to test it. Just make this process available online. We bank online surely we can do this online.

...Different thread though. This one is about what's out there to stimulate this? or is it all military right now...if so how can we get this going? Not being critical of posts just trying to continue the direction here...

[O.L. Adcock]

Clolson, "I had a situation where my gps reported my altitude as -2000 feet MSL (below sea level) so the thing started climbing to get back to it's target altitude. Establishing a 400' AGL limit doesn't necessarily mean an aircraft will actually stay in those limits even if it is trying to."

Yep, GPS altitude isn't very reliable. That's where the meeting of the minds needs to find another way. There are hand held laser range finders out there accurate to +-3' from 3000', theres got to be a way to use that cheap available technology for accurate AGL readings....O.L.

[HoverMonkey]

Curt,

Good thoughts. Thanks.

That URL is great. I didn't see that before. Flying wings keep appearing in UAV/MAV design don't they.

Anyone have any URL on FAA ideas on MAV/UAV? Since I think that is the biggest hurdle from starting for most people is answering the question: is building this and flying it legal? ... and how to build/fly it legaly...even if that means changing the laws to make it legal...how?

[HoverMonkey]

Clolson, "I had a situation where my gps reported my altitude as -2000 feet MSL (below sea level) so the thing started climbing to get back to it's target altitude. Establishing a 400' AGL limit doesn't necessarily mean an aircraft will actually stay in those limits even if it is trying to."


Ops! Ya, I'm impressed with the challenge. But there are ways to code around them as you point out. Or use other hardware...

[clolson]

Because someone's existing code read their UAV was -2000' is a problem with their code/UAV not a general issue with all UAV. That's what filtering is for. You're last reading was approx 300' agl then you get a -2000 your software should toss this out...read from your ground proximity radar and determine you are still in fact flying...your barometer should report no sudden drop in barometric pressure..

Discarding specific numbers, what do you do when you your GPS (not your software) reports a 3000' altitude change. Was the previous altitude correct, or is the current altitude correct? What do you do when you gps gets confused and stops sending any data at all.

Anyone who has built a UAV and worked on the flight controller and autopilot knows that *everything* is painfully dependent on your sensor data. GPS can *easily* be confused and inadvertently jammed. Sensors are never as clean or accurate as you'd like. The integration/filtering math never is as accurate as you like and is more sensitive to noise and disturbances and outright errors than we'd like. I've seen a MIDG-II which is the flagship IMU/GPS in the $5000k range warp itself several hundred yards instantaneously and become extremely confused about it's attitude, and then take a minute to sort itself out.

I think that once you build and operate your own UAV you will be much less confident about it's abilities to robustly always stay within any set of boundaries.


There are existing aviation rules out there. Pilots can in fact do whatever they wish and simply have to obey them. So, make a UAV/MAV obey whatever rules are setup. They are just robots. No better or worse than their design/programming. Your code could be reviewed, or at least before you fly your schematics approved or ??? Let's not think the worst of those that we encourage to innovate.


Again your argument assumes perfect sensor data that you can always trust. I used to think like that until I got into the test flying phase of my uav project.


There could simply be penalties for flying things that do not conform to rules setup for MAV/UAV. Maybe you have to get it "certified" or at least register it along with documentation on how you plan to keep it from flying into things or hurt people...if the documentation is reasonable then you get a green light to test it. Just make this process available online. We bank online surely we can do this online.

...Different thread though. This one is about what's out there to stimulate this? or is it all military right now...if so how can we get this going? Not being critical of posts just trying to continue the direction here...

No, this is all related. You are asking for gov't support of UAV efforts, and I am saying yes, definitely, but we have to show a level of competence and saftey and a good track record. Unfortunately, uav's have a horrible track record of safety and robustness. No one wants to talk about that though because we all have businesses or hopes and dreams of businesses on the line.

Curt.

[HoverMonkey]

Unfortunately, uav's have a horrible track record of safety and robustness.
Curt.
Can you back this up more than just your subjective opinion?

Because it has not yet been done, because it is difficult is no reason not to do it for me.

I am building one. Paparazzi Tiny13 and Tiny20 is the brains. Target aircraft initially will be Miglet. Paparazzi did the work. It has filtering and a great track record. I can back that up with this URL: http://paparazzi.enac.fr/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

See the results from MAV07 ... I'm going to be starting with that foundation and building upon it. But is it legal to fly it? Is there any USA based Opensource projects (I see one other on RCGroups)? Why so few? How to get more?

F.U.D. won't dissuade me. There is too many examples where these are safe, do fly well, do what they are told and don't weigh more than a few ounces. Wouldn't hurt anything anyhow if it did fall out of the sky.

I would propose rules based on size and weight. Capabilities. No reason to have the same rules for a 20oz MAV that you would have for a UAV that weighs 20lbs or 200lbs or 2000lbs...right?

[CenTexFlyer]

Wow! Seems like some folks just stepped out into the sunshine.......hate to be the bearer of bad news Hovermonkey, but you're several years behind the curve.

You guys might want to do a few searches (no pun intended) on SAR, Search & Rescue, FAA regulation, etc. right here on Groups. We have been using our purpose designed unmanned aircraft to do SAR work for about 4 years now. We have been credited with several "finds" and have developed procedures and methods to perform such tasks. We fly disasters, fires, law enforcement support and even land and greenspace development.

Over at RCAPA we tried to put together a SAR competition that we were going to run nationwide. They FAA asked us to wait until they could get something firmer on the books. To that end, the FAA IS working on regulation right now. And you CAN fly a UA if obtain a Certificate of Authority, but you must do that thru a law enforcement agency or other civil government entity. Speaking of Mt. Hood.... one of our aircraft was there and it did indeed fly. The wind was quite high but we did get up but the window they gave us to operate in was very small and we had to yield to full scale aircraft.

We have worked with the FAA on many cases where a UA was used. There is a method, and there are ways to get it done, but you WILL have to follow procedure and get involved with the right people. It takes work and persistance. So to ask "why isn't anything being done?" is a bit mis-informed, because there is ALOT being done and we have been doing it!

Gene
www.rpflightsystems.com

[HoverMonkey]

Discarding specific numbers, what do you do when you your GPS (not your software) reports a 3000' altitude change. Was the previous altitude correct, or is the current altitude correct? What do you do when you gps gets confused and stops sending any data at all.

Anyone who has built a UAV and worked on the flight controller and autopilot knows that *everything* is painfully dependent on your sensor data. GPS can *easily* be confused and inadvertently jammed. Sensors are never as clean or accurate as you'd like. The integration/filtering math never is as accurate as you like and is more sensitive to noise and disturbances and outright errors than we'd like. I've seen a MIDG-II which is the flagship IMU/GPS in the $5000k range warp itself several hundred yards instantaneously and become extremely confused about it's attitude, and then take a minute to sort itself out.

I read this whole section and say F.U.D.

My thoughts after reading:
1. Close your eyes and walk towards a wall, I'll call out how close you are...5' 4' 3' 2000' past it!!!, 2' 1' ... it's not a giant leap to have a subroutine toss a value like this.
2. If someone spent 5000k on a ship and didn't take this into account ...well I can imagine maybe something else was going on. Maybe some other software glitch...dunno, not going to worry about why that thing did that.
3. "nose and disturbances.." Well, we have a lot of 777 out there dealing wth the same nose. And other planes with a lot more at stake (i.e. humans on board). They deal with it. They have better code.

A guy I work with was able to with only 2 satellites fix get a 2D fix with velocity with pretty good accuracy. With 3 satellites he had 3D fix within a few meters. Sure, say it can't be done. He did it in Israel 10+ years ago. I believe him the guy is a genius.

F.U.D. is what puts up walls, blocks progress and is usually unsupported with real facts. Just subjective observations and opinions...

This thread is not asking people to say how hard this is. I'm not being critical of you posting that. I'm simply saying skip past it to the idea that ok, that's a given, so how to deal with it and avoid it without the lengthy reasons why it's so hard.

[clolson]

I said something about UAV's having a horrible track record for safety and reliability ...

Can you back this up more than just your subjective opinion?


How about a Wall Street Journal article ...

Drones in Domestic Skies?
They're in Demand for Rescue And Surveillance Missions, But Critics
Question Safety

By JONATHAN KARP and ANDY PASZTOR
Wall Street Journal

August 7, 2006; Page B1

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115491642950528436.html?mod=hps_us_editors_picks

Speaking of the Predator:

" ... A recent report by the Congressional Research Service said their accident rate is 100 times that of manned aircraft, and noted that of 135 Predator unmanned surveillance-and-attack planes delivered and used in military operations, 50 have been lost and 34 more have had serious accidents.

To be sure, combat is different from commercial flight, but Air Force officials say that all of the crashes so far were the result of malfunctions or errors by pilots who are often as far away as Nevada and lack the sensation of being in the cockpit ... "

And these are the guys that know what they are doing and have all the money to design and build and buy top of the line stuff.

[HoverMonkey]

I said something about UAV's having a horrible track record for safety and reliability ...



How about a Wall Street Journal article ...

Drones in Domestic Skies?
They're in Demand for Rescue And Surveillance Missions, But Critics
Question Safety

By JONATHAN KARP and ANDY PASZTOR
Wall Street Journal

August 7, 2006; Page B1

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115491642950528436.html?mod=hps_us_editors_picks

Speaking of the Predator:

" ... A recent report by the Congressional Research Service said their accident rate is 100 times that of manned aircraft, and noted that of 135 Predator unmanned surveillance-and-attack planes delivered and used in military operations, 50 have been lost and 34 more have had serious accidents.

To be sure, combat is different from commercial flight, but Air Force officials say that all of the crashes so far were the result of malfunctions or errors by pilots who are often as far away as Nevada and lack the sensation of being in the cockpit ... "

And these are the guys that know what they are doing and have all the money to design and build and buy top of the line stuff.

Got it, the path to today is littered with examples of failure. But what about today and the future? I really didn't expect to look at the military for examples of success rate but you are correct they have bigger budgets and likely you'd expect a better track record...point taken.

To find a lost hiker, to search for a person, plane wreckage, doesn't require a Predator. That's a military aircraft with far different specs for it's intended usage.

I'm shooting for small, low cost, low budget, low risk, high-reward...again non-military use. This thing should cost a few hundred at most, has no weapons, no on-board supercomputer...

I think there are great (non-military employed) minds out there. They walk among us and are very much able to solve problems and invent extremely intelligent robots flying or walking...where are these minds? What are we doing to help them invent? Are they in the Universities? Are they able to collaborate with us ordinary people?

I am completely against anything big and heavy and capable of great damage flying around overhead that's not very very thoroughly tested or by a well funded carefully regulated group.

I am completely for having a place to go fly/test my 20" wingspan 100g MAV and see if I can come up with something capable of flying in very adverse conditions and capable of very sophisticated missions. Where can I do this? where are others doing this...Small budgets, small aircraft, small expectations, small risk....more info...I have no problem with others flying these lightweight low risk MAVs around me. Granted I hope they have wide-open place to fly them and I also hope this could someday be encouraged by our laws and regulations.

[CenTexFlyer]

I must be invisible.......

[HoverMonkey]

Wow! Seems like some folks just stepped out into the sunshine.......hate to be the bearer of bad news Hovermonkey, but you're several years behind the curve.
[/url]

...why is that bad news? That's great news. Why I didn't find it in previous searches I don't know. Maybe it should be a "sticky".

So, no links? I guess I'll enter those searches you said...thanks again.

[HoverMonkey]

And you CAN fly a UA if obtain a Certificate of Authority, but you must do that thru a law enforcement agency or other civil government entity.
Ok, so what does that mean? I have to take my MAV to the local police station?

In reading another post here about what defines a UAV someone posted info from FAA :
<lots of info about how everything UAV is regulated by AFS-820>
Then this:
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.

So, if I am not being paid to fly my MAV ( < 55lbs ) and it stays below 400' AGL according to the FAA I am flying my model for recreational purposes right?

I can't say it enough times here. If it's < 55lbs, hell < 5lbs I consider that a big objects flying around above...something doesn't need to be nearly that heavy to do SAR work...great so far so good.

[Magician]

I read this whole section and say F.U.D.

My thoughts after reading:
1. Close your eyes and walk towards a wall, I'll call out how close you are...5' 4' 3' 2000' past it!!!, 2' 1' ... it's not a giant leap to have a subroutine toss a value like this.
2. If someone spent 5000k on a ship and didn't take this into account ...well I can imagine maybe something else was going on. Maybe some other software glitch...dunno, not going to worry about why that thing did that.
3. "nose and disturbances.." Well, we have a lot of 777 out there dealing wth the same nose. And other planes with a lot more at stake (i.e. humans on board). They deal with it. They have better code.

F.U.D. is what puts up walls, blocks progress and is usually unsupported with real facts. Just subjective observations and opinions...

This thread is not asking people to say how hard this is. I'm not being critical of you posting that. I'm simply saying skip past it to the idea that ok, that's a given, so how to deal with it and avoid it without the lengthy reasons why it's so hard.


HoverMonkey,

First, what does F.U.D. mean? This is an acronym that I am not familiar with and I know a lot of them!

Second, you seem to easily dismiss the input of folks who have done this for a while both from a hardware, software and regulation point of view. Some things are just not as easy as you think they are. Take the altitude example, the GPS can output a poor value, as closon stated, how do you determine which is right, you can use baro but what if your static port gets clogged or the sensor fails, you say look at your AGL sensor. Well an acoustic sensor is good to 20', a laser range finder that works to 1000' weighs 6-9oz and costs $2000 (outside of your $500 budget) and forget about a cheap light weight radar altimeter, they don't exist.

Third, it's not all software, there has to be some physical sensors in there somewhere so your assertion that software can fix the issues doesn'y quite cut it. If you wanted to have an autopilot that had enough smarts to realize that the output may be out of bounds, to ignore some sensors and believe others then you are approaching artificial intelligence territory and you won't get that processing power on a $500 20oz UAV.

And your example of the 777 having no problem dealing with the same noise (not nose like you stated) is also misguided. A small UAV has small low cost noisy sensors and many don't have a true IMU. However, the 777 has one heck of a ring laser gyro based IMU that costs upwards of $100,000 and is built into a precision machined case. Not really a fair comparison.

Finally, the issue that small UAVs are not as easy or reliable as some think is very relevant to your topic of getting access to some type of airspace. Safety is the main issue people throw around so it must be addressed at some point. Please try and hear what folks are saying, especially the ones who have real world experience. It would help in your understanding of the proper way to try and get airspace.

Chris

[CenTexFlyer]

That's great news. Why I didn't find it in previous searches I don't know. Maybe it should be a "sticky".

Just trying to help.... here is one of the links over in Aerial Photography - it was one of the never-ending threads on the FAA and their fumbling with the UA issue....

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=646450

There are several good threads over at www.rcapa.net that explain more of the situation with the FAA as well.

No, you don't have to take your MAV to the local police station, but your local police CAN apply for a COA and you could fly it under their direction.

You can also go to our website at www.rpflightsystems.com and read about a few of the missions we've been on. Those are some of the earlier ones and we could add many more, but when you travel as much as we do, it gets hard to do web publishing.

The stuff that has been reported in the past on UA "crashes" has been greatly exaggerated. For example, if you bring your SlowStick in for a landing and happen to break a prop, the media (and many other agencies) call that a "crash" because something "broke". For the most part, we call that "normal" because these are things that are easily replaceable and/or easy to repair. There is alot of catching up to do on all sides concerning nomenclature and normal useage.

[HoverMonkey]

Magician,

Good points.

I'm speaking to this sort of MAV/UAV:
http://www.vectorsite.net/twuav_17.html

but not a military project...a civilian project. Open source preferably..USA based.

I did just find this: http://wc.pima.edu/~cdiscenza/arac_news.htm

... trying to find the video(s) I was watching about a week ago where a small MAV (30' wingspan max) was flying autonomously down a canyon using video to avoid the canyon walls...all with off the shelf components and on a University Student budget...it is possible. They simply used the processing power in the ground station to process the video...then send commands back to the MAV to correct it's course.

I'm not saying all the processing has to be on the MAV.

I am not quickly dismissing anything or anyone. If you say it isn't possible and I know it is then I will disagree. That's not dismissing it's knowing it can be done.

..still looking for those videos. Maybe you should search as well, it's amazing what these small foam or CF micro-UAVs are capable of these days. Stuff those million dollar ones maybe can do but these are very cheap, very easy to build...admit maybe you just don't know about it.

Here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfLwbW-R3IE

The technology is there, it's cheap, Paparazzy autopilot is all of 250.00 in parts including the GPS. The software will do the work and fly it just fine. Here's a video of one in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVN34XoIkqI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abUt6G7Rvgg&feature=related

All fully capable little aircraft that somehow manage to use that noisy awful GPS info and stay in the air...

Read this:
http://paparazzi.enac.fr/wiki/index.php/Theory_of_Operation

[CenTexFlyer]

The "canyon wall" flights were done over at Brigham Young in Utah. Their success rate was equal to their failure rate. Anything is possible, as you say, but to be 100% reliable is another story altogether. We are slowly but surely creeping up on the reliability numbers, but they are still no where near what anyone would consider acceptable standards. This is why the FAA still wants a pilot in the loop and line of sight as the limiting parameter.

[Magician]

Magician,
I did just find this: http://wc.pima.edu/~cdiscenza/arac_news.htm

... trying to find the video(s) I was watching about a week ago where a small MAV (30' wingspan max) was flying autonomously down a canyon using video to avoid the canyon walls...all with off the shelf components and on a University Student budget...it is possible. They simply used the processing power in the ground station to process the video...then send commands back to the MAV to correct it's course.

I am not quickly dismissing anything or anyone. If you say it isn't possible and I know it is then I will disagree. That's not dismissing it's knowing it can be done.

..still looking for those videos. Maybe you should search as well, it's amazing what these small foam or CF micro-UAVs are capable of these days. Stuff those million dollar ones maybe can do but these are very cheap, very easy to build...admit maybe you just don't know about it.


HoverMonkey,

You are coming up to speed but still have some catching up to do. I am very familiar with all the examples you've shown. Even have some stick time on a Raven.

The PIMA group you reference is a tech school that is working hard and learning a lot. However, I don't think they were successful at the IARC in their first year, based on feedback from a friend who is a judge at the contest. They too are learning that an autonomous small UAV is tough, but the good thing is they are learning.

The BYU lab is doing some very cool stuff but I wouldn't quite put them in the "student budget" category. Did you notice the NASA and Air Force sponsorship at the end of the video? Some good $$ has been invested to get that great research. And those foamy wings are not 30", they are more like 48" and they use the Procerus autopilot that costs about $5,000. Also, the canyon flying was not done using the video to avoid the wall, it was done using optic flow sensors and who knows how much they cost, can't be too cheap. You might want to get the facts straight before using them as examples.

Sorry, I can't admit that I don't know about these groups or their technology or methods, heck I even know some of the individuals who are doing the work. It really is a small group in the UAV sector and a lot of them are modelers so we know each other both from UAV stuff and model competitions.

Chris

[HoverMonkey]

Hey Magic,
Thanks for the info...appreciated...and interesting. I have seen "Kestrel" autopilot. Yep, 5k a pop. But the actual components are not 5k. More like 200.00 from Digikey.
Now the software...I noticed even in their development kit the Kalman Filtering code is encrypted. That's likely the reason for the 5k price tag...it's sure not the cost of those off the shelf components in the thing.
I am learning, fast, I only just starting being curious about all this about a Month or two ago. I have two Paparazzi Autopilots built and teaching myself the in/out of their ground station and programming the thing...it's a hobby so it takes a back seat to playing with my kids, wife and other fun.

[clolson]

All fully capable little aircraft that somehow manage to use that noisy awful GPS info and stay in the air...ce


I was just going to stay out of the rest of this, but oh well ...

You need to realize that there is a big difference between being successful once and being rock solid reliable every time.

My UAV has flown my little test route for cumulative hours (broken up into 20-30 minute flights.) I can go out on a day, fly 3 batteries, rack up 60 minutes of flight, and never glitch the whole time. And then there's the day where the gps satellites are misbehaving, or the gps inexplicably looses it's solution in midflight.

We are working on a parachute for whatever it's worth. :-)

Your point about 5, 4, 3, -2000, 1, 0 indicates you may not have looked closely at a lot of gps output. What you are more likely to see out of your gps is 5, 4, 3, -2000, -2001, -2002 ... now what. Or maybe even 5, 4, 3, 500, 501, 502, ... or 500, 500, 500, 500, 500 (when you are really at 5) ... how smart exactly is your software? Your UAV performance is truly only as good as the sensor data you get in, and once you get out and start doing this stuff for real, you are going to realize that sensor data is not nearly as good as you are imagining it right now.

There are many stories about people inadvertently jamming gps for some local area. What do you do if you fly into such an area?

It may be that the paparrazi sensors are always perfect, and once you get them up and flying and if it turns out they are, I'll be the very next one to buy a set. It's just that I've seen a lot more expensive stuff get confused every once in a while, so I'm a little skeptical about something a person solders together themselves.

Regards,

Curt.

[Gary Mortimer]

Nobody has added that many regulators will require these MAV's/UAV's/RPV's etc etc etc to have safety standards equal or greater than current fixed wing aircraft.

How you determine that who knows!!!

There are very few people out there to test them. Or even set the standards.

Technology is obviously getting cheaper and lighter.

A subject that 5 years ago was already coming to the attention of aviation authorities is getting ever more relevant as it gets easier to fly working computer controlled model aircraft.

I really think we have to be careful using the term UAV as it infers that the aircraft is off doing its own thing. Remotely piloted vehicle is a better term. The regulators will be less inclined to worry.

As I warm to the subject, I also think the operators really ought to have at least taken an airlaw exam and perhaps human performance. Why...

Well when I'm flying full size I don't want to bump into a fun science project.

Nor I guess would the medical rescue military or civilian pilot flying into a sports field for a patient, want to collect a 2kg model being flown below 400'

Thats why they want them in sight of the operator so badly, makes perfect sense to me.

Not that I have ever stopped myself launching a model into the sky because I have seen an aircraft coming.

http://diydrones.com/video/video/show?id=705844:Video:6130

I am certainly no technical expert, but it seems to me that many problems are being solved by very clever people here and other forums that I read.

It strikes me that 2008 will be a year when hard and fast rules really come into play

Merry Christmas all, only three more sleeps

G

[patrickegan]

We should be getting a clearer picture of what’s in store (regulation wise) for us in the first half of 2008.

[HoverMonkey]

Good comments, thank you. My own interest lies in MAV in the under .5kg. Yes, pilot in the loop, the thing could be scaled up someday but only after development.
Comments welcome. My feelings are develop using a MAV weighing 300g not a UAV that weighs 500kg. My own priorities are:
1. Make it safe is size/weight/dimentions
2. Make it cheap as far as components
3. Make it available and legal (given 1 and 2)
Hoping for more comments on things small enough to be termed a MAV.
The BYU wing is very much on target there. I did find a thread with very good info that started with a list of goals I read let night.
For CPU / processing I would like to swap the LPC2148 on the "classix" Paparazzi board with an ALTFATxp LPC2148 that has a Java JRE and other useful things.

[HoverMonkey]

To those commenting on "noise" and the instruments feeding the data. I certainly do not shrug off the challenge. To me it is just a challenge and as stated when I get my eyes on real data I will see first hand what you speak about. Certainly I plan to couple or check values from sensors with large e pected error with other sensors it should help.

[macboffin]

Heheh, exactly the thought process I'm trying to start...thanks for the comments...

Yep, but our newer better SUPERMAV can fly in 100mph blizzards and find a cell signal, human body from a mile away...we just haven't built it yet...what we have now just isn't up to the task.

Totally, FAA needs to be a part of the solution not part of the reason why SUPERMAV hasn't been built/flown yet. I'm thinking small...Airplanes hit birds all the time. Make something smarter than a bird and that will do less damage just in case...

"Smarter than a bird" meaning it will avoid planes not fly into them...easy enough. Look at "Tiny2.1" autopilot on Paparazzi...using GPS, IMU, maybe some radar (i.e. let "it" see the plane and avoid it not wait for a pilot to see it and avoid it...). Maybe FAA could help make it easier for UAV/MAV with intelligent plane avoiding logic to fly. Not so hard to make something that sees something and avoids it...it is 2007 not 1967...the tiny CPU exist, the brains to write the code exists, the rules to allow it don't...

I just somehow feel it coming and want to not go there...please do NOT bring up what this technology could do in the wrong hands...it makes as much sense as going to a gun forum and bringing up the same subject...assume good people, with the best intentions for this SUPERMAV only here for this thread...Did it ever occur to you that birds do not want to meet planes any more than pilots want to meet birds? And that birds have better eyesight and are more manouvrable? And lets get a bit moral here ; the birds were there first, we are stealing their airspace from them whether with UAVs or manned aircraft! All part of the great American principle that Might is Right!

[HoverMonkey]

Did it ever occur to you that birds do not want to meet planes any more than pilots want to meet birds? And that birds have better eyesight and are more manouvrable? And lets get a bit moral here ; the birds were there first, we are stealing their airspace from them whether with UAVs or manned aircraft! All part of the great American principle that Might is Right!
actually I believe otherwise. I think birds who get hit just dont see it coming. A MAV should. Note I chose the word "should".
like using ADS-B info? The nice thing with expiremental means you are free to add whatever technology you feel you require.

[lvspark]

What get me is pilots making a big deal about hitting a MAV, but don't say squat (or even think about) radiosondes that are relased from 92 locations twice a day since the 80's.... Figure that one into your probability models..

http://www.ofcm.gov/fmh3/text/append-c.html

[HoverMonkey]

This is something interesting, I had not thought about that. I have but not recently.
Are these two statements correct?
1. Is it perfectly legal for me to build a several kg weather balloon UAV and send it up miles into the air (obviously out of visual control).
2. It is NOT legal to build a light (under 1kg) MAV and fly it out of visual range even at low altitude

I really see little, actually, no comments anywhere about people acknowledging the difference between a MAV and UAV and the rules (ok, I saw the definition of UAV vs "Model" definition that was < 5kg) but not much talk on proposed rules/regulations. I am talking about people who comment in these threads are almost exclusively commenting on UAV in the > 5kg range. Is there anyone on this list, USA based, and flying/building anything under 5kg AUW? Under 1kg?

[patrickegan]

In the U.S. there is no distinction between MAV, SUAS or blimp (un-tethered). If you are engaged in commercial activity it is a UAV and subject to this policy statement.

http://www.rcapa.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1282

[HoverMonkey]

In the U.S. there is no distinction between MAV, SUAS or blimp (un-tethered). If you are engaged in commercial activity it is a UAV and subject to this policy statement.

http://www.rcapa.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1282

Thanks of the link. I did not see any reference to my #1 in the previous post. I did find this URL to be a useful location for UAV info: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/02/15/212105/faa-flags-potential-new-regulatory-environment-for-small-uav-access-to-us.html

But, still no takers on the whole MAV/UAV differences ... I guess then I can assume everyone reading this thread really considers a MAV and UAV the same thing? Should have the same rules? <--please see the world "Should" not "Have" there.

I guess all understandable. If no one here is building MAVs (Only UAV) then I can understand the apathy when I speak about MAV.

[lvspark]

You info for your #1post above is FAA Part 101 (http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/14cfr101_04.html)

Is a MAV unmanned?
Is a MAV aerial?
Is a MAV a vehicle intended to fly through the air?
A MAV is a UAV, so is a spitwad.

[Gary Mortimer]

Um excuse my ignorance, but what is a spitwad???

[lvspark]

heh heh heh heh, a correctly sized piece of paper chewed and saturated with saliva, formed into a ball and inserted into a straw with the tongue, and launched with a sharp exhale. :D

In an attempt to contain and control all that fly's in the USA, the FAA's broad definition of UAV covers just about anything, including a football, flying disk, or spit ball. According to the authority having jurisdiction of the United States national airspace system (NAS), a MAV is a UAV along with many other things that fly.

When Hovermonkey asks questions with terms that are loosely defined, it is hard to provide a solid answer.

Hovermonkey, when you want to gather opinion on MAV vs. UAV, you need to provide specific differences and definition of what a MAV is, and what a UAV is, as a MAV is just a small UAV. Maybe ask the question like should a blackwidow be regulated the same as a predator? Being more specific might engauge the forum members a little more and you wont have to assume from the lack of replies.

[HoverMonkey]

Congrats lvspark you must have a future in politics.
I thought I couldn't be more clear and you read it as being a complete generality.
Good work, for a politician. I started this thread. I know what I'm asking for. You couldn't have been farther off-base.
I'm closing this. If I wanted UAV info I can simply search and find it in existing threads. Asking for MAV info simply gets more UAV info back. Seems everyone considers them the same according to replies. If not no one cares to do more than tell me a MAV is governed by the same rules so I should be more specific...great. Useful stuff there. ...