Hi Mick,

I am teaching a Systems Engineering Class at Dickson College which is centred around the UAV Outback Challenge ( a great fit, but the way). We have had some great discussions about the rules (requirements) and discussed various solutions to fit the requirements. Our students love the challenge and the various subject disciplines that have to be integrated into the solution. (oh .... and they are learning heaps about how to run a complex project, teamwork, technical stuff, etc.). We have 20 students in this class.

We have entered 2 teams into the UAV challenge. We have 2 different airframes (Boomerang and Huggins), two separate pilot teams and 2 ground support teams. Each deliverable 1 document will be specific to each team (i.e. specific to platform).

As there has been a great deal of group discussion, there is overlap of the solutions between both airframes. The drop mechanism, navigation approaches, pre-flight checklist, etc. are examples of similar approaches. All of these have been designed and built specifically for this year’s OBC.

We are wondering how to handle this in the Statement of Originality. Do we :

1) List half the class on each statement of originality and acknowledge the other team in the document.
2) List all students on both statements.
3) Only list the pilots and ground crew on each statement and acknowledge the Systems Engineering Class in the document.

Can you guide us on the appropriate approach that will be acceptable to the judges?

Best regards,

Andrew Moss
Robotics/ICT Instructor U.A.V. Team Co-ordinator
Dickson College U.A.V. Outback Challenge 2011
Canberra
phone : 0449163692

Originally Posted by BazDaddy

Tridge

When you say you are doing your video over you digital wireless link does that mean you are using IP video? How are you going to get over the latency issues of IP video?

yes, we do plan on using IP video. All we've experimented with so far is a cheap Axis MJPEG camera over our ubiquity link, but we're hoping to move to a H.264 encoder and a better camera.

We don't think the latency of the encoder will be a big problem because we don't necessarily need it to be low latency. We need a video link for 2 reasons. The first is the request in section 5.14 of the rules for a video stream from the aircraft for the challenge organisers to look at. That video stream doesn't need to be low latency. The 2nd reason is for the loss of GPS control in 5.5.4, where you are trying to get the plane home without GPS. The rules suggest dead reckoning or onboard video for guiding the plane home. We think a combination of dead reckoning with the autopilots stabiliser will work well with a small amount of 'stick mixing' by the pilot on the ground watching over the video link. The pilot will be able to nudge the plane onto a better course if the dead reckoning isn't perfect. That sort of flying doesn't need low latency.

I actually think that full FPV flying when the stabiliser is enabled on the plane will also be possible, although that isn't needed for the OBC competition. The APM already has the possibility of remote control in this way via a joystick or keyboard, and a number of people have successfully flown both fixed wing and multicopters using joysticks. That uses a 'RC override' MAVLink message from the ground station which I initially added to APM for our experiments, but is now used quite widely. The latency of those MAVLink messages is quite high (around 0.25s), but its proven to work well when you are flying an aircraft that has a stabiliser. In APM if you engage something like FBWA mode then it becomes very easy to fly a plane over a high latency link.

A lot of this is theoretical for us at the moment, as we are still building up all the pieces we will need to make this work, so perhaps we'll hit some major hurdle like many people before us that have tried IP video links for FPV. I'll certainly post something to my blog if/when we've done some good test flights with this method of control.

Cheers, Tridge

Hi

Does anyone know what the law is in Australia about using the Long Range Systems like the ChainLink or Dragon Link?

Originally Posted by BazDaddy

Does anyone know what the law is in Australia about using the Long Range Systems like the ChainLink or Dragon Link?

I haven't found one yet that is legal, although maybe if you have a HAM license you could find one that fits that?

If you do find a legal one then please let me know :-)

You probably could stick an amplifier on your 2.4GHz TX, as long as you're sure you are within the 4W EIRP limit, but I haven't investigated that. We're looking at doing MAVLink over IP using the RC override message instead for long range control.

Cheers, Tridge

Well we now know that Latitude have an airframe capable of hanging around all day looking. http://www.suasnews.com/2011/08/6396...t-known-birds/

I want to use 2.4 for Video so that puts 2.4 out for standard transmitter control. Thats why I thought if I used the ChainLink or Dragon Link I could use my transmitter at a different frequency.

OK I have just read the Class Licence 2000 and it says that 433mhz is 100% fine to use!

So that makes Dragon Link and ChainLink legal!

Only if you limit them to 25 mW. (Item 17)

Originally Posted by Gary Mortimer

Well we now know that Latitude have an airframe capable of hanging around all day looking. http://www.suasnews.com/2011/08/6396...t-known-birds/

.. I dont think we'll be carrying quite that amount of fuel Gary.

I should really learn to scroll down! I saw 2.4ghz there at 10mw and was getting worried. Sorry I'm new to Australia and still getting my head around the frequency limits!

I guess I will have to find a better way, as 25mw is almost nothing!

Yep, the comms are half the challenge!

digital modulation and tracker antenna!

Subspace transceivers

Originally Posted by tridge

You probably could stick an amplifier on your 2.4GHz TX, as long as you're sure you are within the 4W EIRP limit

Another team has kindly pointed out to me that the 4W class license also has requirements regarding number of hopping frequencies used to get the 4W EIRP. So adding an amplifier to a standard 2.4GHz TX would probably not be in the class license. Please check carefully before you try this. See the details of the class license, particularly item 54. Thanks to team latitude for the tip.

Using Ctick equipment is probably the simplest way to ensure compliance, for example the ubiquity radios we're using are available with Ctick in Australia, and have a nice web interface where you enter your antenna gains and it checks you are within the regulatory rules.

Cheers, Tridge

Im just so worried that you are not going to keep a stable connection with the ubiquity stuff. I started and ran one of the biggest wireless network communitys in the world back in South Africa (PTAWUG) and we ran 5.8ghz throughout our whole backbone network and its VERY unstable if its not VERY directional. it also tends to drop out very easy.

Im SO interested to see how this works out for you guys! Please keep me posted!