SMALL - espritmodel.com SMALL - Telemetry SMALL - Radio
Closed Thread
Thread Tools
This thread is privately moderated by Mick Molloy, who may elect to delete unwanted replies.
Old May 31, 2011, 01:08 AM
MINE!
Mick Molloy's Avatar
Australia, VIC, Point Cook
Joined Jul 2003
3,186 Posts
The process will not change, and follow a similar format from previous years. The scrutineering sheets for 2012 comp will be made available to those teams, that have successfully passed Deliverable 2.

Design questions are for teams to figure out, hence the 'challenge'. I can not comment on anything that will influence a design or benefit one team over another.

If you think that normal RC practices are enough to win the competition, that may be the approach a team might decide to take. Other teams may take a different approach. Many years of competition have shown a large amount of variety in the entries and how they approach the task of finding Outback Joe. As much, as we'd love to say do this, do that, it's up to teams to make those decisions in accordance with the rules.

Cheers

Mark
Mick Molloy is offline Find More Posts by Mick Molloy
RCG Plus Member
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old May 31, 2011, 05:34 PM
Registered User
Dr Strangelove's Avatar
Joined Feb 2010
43 Posts
"Design questions are for teams to figure out, hence the 'challenge'."

Ok, I understand, the challenge is trying to design to a standard that is only given to you after you have completed the design.


"I can not comment on anything that will influence a design"

Actually, we were more interested in the comments from the scrutineers over the last couple of years, but anything you want to add would be fine.

"or benefit one team over another."

How could posting the sheets on the official forum or attaching them to the rules on the website possibly benefit one team over the other?

1) There is a section in the rules that refers to "Static Scrutineering".
2) Scrutineering has always been about " S A F E T Y".
3) There is NO definition around static scrutineering or what will be scrutineered.
4) Scrutineering can be extremely subjective in terms of what different individuals would consider good/bad / safe/unsafe practice (depending if they have spent a quarter of a century in the defence industry or most of their life flying model planes).
5) Teams have been given more time to design and build their systems.
6) If information was distributed on what the scrutineers liked/disliked, there is a chance that the overall safety/standard/reliability/success of the competition would be raised.

We're not asking anyone to design our systems, we're just trying to get some clarification around the expectations.
Dr Strangelove is offline Find More Posts by Dr Strangelove
Old May 31, 2011, 07:24 PM
Registered User
Joined May 2011
5 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Strangelove View Post
"Design questions are for teams to figure out, hence the 'challenge'."

Ok, I understand, the challenge is trying to design to a standard that is only given to you after you have completed the design.


"I can not comment on anything that will influence a design"

Actually, we were more interested in the comments from the scrutineers over the last couple of years, but anything you want to add would be fine.

"or benefit one team over another."

How could posting the sheets on the official forum or attaching them to the rules on the website possibly benefit one team over the other?

1) There is a section in the rules that refers to "Static Scrutineering".
2) Scrutineering has always been about " S A F E T Y".
3) There is NO definition around static scrutineering or what will be scrutineered.
4) Scrutineering can be extremely subjective in terms of what different individuals would consider good/bad / safe/unsafe practice (depending if they have spent a quarter of a century in the defence industry or most of their life flying model planes).
5) Teams have been given more time to design and build their systems.
6) If information was distributed on what the scrutineers liked/disliked, there is a chance that the overall safety/standard/reliability/success of the competition would be raised.

We're not asking anyone to design our systems, we're just trying to get some clarification around the expectations.
Mmm, indeed, not posting the scrutineering criteria information will " benefit one team over another.", because past year's teams already have that information.
uav2000 is offline Find More Posts by uav2000
Old May 31, 2011, 10:23 PM
Registered User
Dr Strangelove's Avatar
Joined Feb 2010
43 Posts
Brilliant !!

Add what he just said to the argument!
Dr Strangelove is offline Find More Posts by Dr Strangelove
Old Jun 01, 2011, 06:16 AM
MINE!
Mick Molloy's Avatar
Australia, VIC, Point Cook
Joined Jul 2003
3,186 Posts
Thanks for you help during the crazy past month Mark and given my work load, both at work and at home with the new baby it has been a big help.

Guys static scrutineering is not a black art, it is an inspection of the aircraft for basic airworthiness and compliance with the rules of the UAV Challenge, build your aircraft safely and compliant to the rules and you will most likely pass scrutineering, simple.

The Technical Committee and the Scrutineers are not there to tell you how to design your aircraft and a scrutineering list will not do that for you either. Design and component selection is part of the challenge.

Yes teams that have entered before have the experience of past scrutineering, but they also have experience of the whole challenge, so I am not sure the point you are making UAV2000.

The list will be made available for teams that pass D2.

Mick Molloy
UAV OBC Technical Committee
Mick Molloy is offline Find More Posts by Mick Molloy
RCG Plus Member
Old Jun 01, 2011, 06:23 AM
Registered User
Joined Jan 2011
214 Posts
In the first deliverable this requirement is present:
"Each Team is required to electronically submit a Short Technical Report (max 6 pages) in PDF format that describes the proposed system design and safety considerations."
Is this 6 pages in total or 6 pages of content (excluding content, references, title page etc)?
Narwhal is offline Find More Posts by Narwhal
Old Jun 01, 2011, 06:49 AM
Outta Sight
Australia, WA, Joondalup
Joined Jul 2008
929 Posts
Dr S. and UAV2000,
I think you are overdoing the "scrutiny" part of scrutineering.

The “checklist” (as far as I can remember) contains all the mundane things that you will have done 100 times in your preparation and preflights anyway. Check control surfaces, check engine mount, etc etc etc.

If your plane has come through the deliverables successfully, complies with the rules and has autonomous flight hours on it, then it will likely pass scrutineering without issue.

In the 3 UAV OBCs I've attended as a spectator and a competitor, the approach from the officials has always been consistent, focusing on compliance and safety. The calibre of the entry is not on trial.

Scrutineering inspections were done with a positive attitude and I didn’t find the process to be subjective at all.
If something was found during scrutineering, it could be referred to other judges or the technical committee for open discussion.

The officials know how much work has gone into getting a plane to the start line, they aren’t about to declare a plane unfit to fly if there is something minor that can be fixed.

In 2010 several teams had problems, us included, and the officials did everything they possibly could to accommodate these issues to keep teams in the competition.

Roland
RolandS888 is offline Find More Posts by RolandS888
Old Jun 02, 2011, 02:39 AM
Registered User
Dr Strangelove's Avatar
Joined Feb 2010
43 Posts
Ok, Cool.

So no one is looking for things like power wires touching metal where continued vibration could result in wear and a short circuit or whether the types of connectors you used aren't positively locking and could dislodge. That type of thing.

DrS
Dr Strangelove is offline Find More Posts by Dr Strangelove
Old Jun 02, 2011, 04:37 AM
Outta Sight
Australia, WA, Joondalup
Joined Jul 2008
929 Posts
In my experience that hasnt been the case.
Those kind of reliability issues should probably have already been ironed out by you prior to the challenge.
Your choice of components and how you integrate them is totally up to you.
R.
RolandS888 is offline Find More Posts by RolandS888
Old Jun 07, 2011, 10:31 PM
Registered User
Joined Mar 2011
56 Posts
question about flight termination and RC override

Hi Mick,

Our team has a question about the interpretation of the 3rd bullet in section 5.6, Flight Termination. We see the words "OVERRIDING any other onboard system" as still allowing for override by the pilot on the ground, using manual RC control, but that depends on the interpretation of "onboard system", so we would like to get confirmation that our interpretation is OK.

The reason we interpret it this way is twofold. First, we think that allowing for RC override while in visual range increases safety. For example, if a geofencing error occurs in the autopilot while it is still over the airfield then allowing for the pilot to try to bring the plane down well away from spectators seems like a safer option. This would only happen when the plane is in visual range, and the pilot judges that manually overriding using the RC transmitter is the safest course of action.

The second reason we think this interpretation is probably the right one is that we noticed that the block diagram of the Millswood failsafe device shows that RC override is possible even after flight termination is activated (the RC mux is the last mux in the chain). I think the Millswood device was given the OK in previous challenges, so that seems to support the interpretation that RC override is allowed.

Can you confirm that "onboard system" does not exclude the possibility of RC pilot manual override in case flight termination is activated?

The reason we're asking for clarification is that allowing for RC override means that the RC receiver would need to be excluded from "any other onboard system". The RC receiver is clearly onboard, but the commands are coming from an offboard source (ie. from the human pilot on the ground).

Cheers, Tridge
(on behalf of the CanberraUAV team)
tridge is offline Find More Posts by tridge
Old Jun 07, 2011, 11:02 PM
Registered User
Adelaide, SA
Joined Sep 2009
48 Posts
Excellent questions Tridge, I look forward to hearing the organisers thoughts about this.

On pretty much exactly this topic I have posted a short document here:
http://www.millswoodeng.com.au/docum...ompetitors.txt

Cheers,
Andrew.
Andrew Dunlop is offline Find More Posts by Andrew Dunlop
Old Jun 08, 2011, 12:30 AM
Registered User
Joined Mar 2011
56 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Dunlop View Post
On pretty much exactly this topic I have posted a short document here:
http://www.millswoodeng.com.au/docum...ompetitors.txt
thanks! In that doc you say that RC override "Was cited last year as a no-no". Do you have a reference for that? Was it something discussed on a public forum or was this private feedback to teams?

The specific safety situation we were considering was if the plane is returning from its mission, and then strays over the spectator area under autopilot control. If one of the onboard automated conditions for flight termination triggered at that point then the plane would dive into the spectators.

This is perhaps more of a consideration for us as we plan on trying for automated takeoff and landing (as well as automated joe-finding). That means the plane will be under autopilot control in the airport area for longer than some other teams entries may be (if they are doing manual landing for example). Not being able to takeover manually seems like a risk to us.

Cheers, Tridge
tridge is offline Find More Posts by tridge
Old Jun 08, 2011, 12:49 AM
Registered User
Adelaide, SA
Joined Sep 2009
48 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tridge View Post
thanks! In that doc you say that RC override "Was cited last year as a no-no". Do you have a reference for that? Was it something discussed on a public forum or was this private feedback to teams?
I think it was reported by a team on this forum as one of the (several) reasons a deliverable was declined, but I don't think it should be taken out of context too far. The organisers may have thought RC override in the context of their system with the rules as they stood at that time was unsafe. Things are significantly different now, and this particular issue may be viewed differently. But this is mere speculation on my behalf.

The rest of your comments highlight the difficulty in creating rules that cover all scenarios safely and fairly. I'm very glad I'm not writing the rules!
Andrew Dunlop is offline Find More Posts by Andrew Dunlop
Old Jun 08, 2011, 01:52 AM
Registered User
Joined Mar 2011
56 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Dunlop View Post
I think it was reported by a team on this forum as one of the (several) reasons a deliverable was declined, but I don't think it should be taken out of context too far
I think I may have found the report you are referring to, it was in the rejection of Skynet last year at deliverable 2 which lists "Ability to override the Flight Termination System. This is not allowed."

So if Mick doesn't reply to my question, then I guess we'll have to go without RC override.

It is possible that the Skynet entry allowed override by something other than control via a pilot using RC, and maybe that was why they were rejected. Kinundrum, if you are reading this, can you confirm?

Cheers, Tridge
tridge is offline Find More Posts by tridge
Old Jun 08, 2011, 02:10 AM
Registered User
Joined May 2011
5 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tridge View Post
I think I may have found the report you are referring to, it was in the rejection of Skynet last year at deliverable 2 which lists "Ability to override the Flight Termination System. This is not allowed."

So if Mick doesn't reply to my question, then I guess we'll have to go without RC override.

It is possible that the Skynet entry allowed override by something other than control via a pilot using RC, and maybe that was why they were rejected. Kinundrum, if you are reading this, can you confirm?

Cheers, Tridge
Hey Tridge,

Design a safe system first, then see what the rule makers say. If they come up with a reasonable and rational rejection, at least everyone has learned something, but if you baulk your system on the basis of an invalid assumption, everyone has lost something.
uav2000 is offline Find More Posts by uav2000
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Uav challenge outback 2011 leogarabello Australian Electric Flight Association 1 Feb 08, 2011 08:33 PM
Contest OFFICIAL - 2010 UAV Outback Challenge Forum Mick Molloy UAV - Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 589 Feb 02, 2011 05:18 PM
Discussion UAV Outback Challenge ommadawn FPV Talk 0 Sep 25, 2010 01:37 AM
Contest UAV Challenge Outback Rescue 2009 - Official Thread Mick Molloy UAV - Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 720 Nov 19, 2009 11:42 AM