senseFly’s drones eBee and swinglet CAM, both designed for mapping missions, are now also capable of quickly taking oblique images to complement a mapping project or add additional documentation.
This patent-pending technology is based on a proprietary control algorithm that takes oblique images of photo targets without the need of a camera gimbal, enabling senseFly’s ultralight mapping drones to take aerial shots with an up to 45-degree inclination from the photo target.
The algorithms running on board the drone’s autopilot automatically place and orient the drone based on the defined image resolution and inclination (0-45°) selected by the operator. The drone then adapts its trajectory according to local wind and target altitude.
Having a system that positions the camera autonomously with respect to the photo target enables senseFly’s drone systems to take precise oblique images without the need for live video feedback or a camera gimbal.
As these new techniques do not require any hardware changes, this ability is freely available to the community of eBee and swinglet CAM (late 2012 model) users with the new release of eMotion 2.2.
Beside creating stunning visuals, senseFly’s latest release of Postflight Terra 3D will enable users to go one step further and add these oblique images to a standard mapping flight, adding visibility to facades and vertical surfaces.
After a rigorous 10-month selection process involving 25 proposals from 24 states, the Federal Aviation Administration announced it has chosen six unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) research and test site operators across the country.
According to the announcement, in selecting the six test site operators, the FAA considered geography, climate, location of ground infrastructure, research needs, airspace use, safety, aviation experience and risk. In totality, these six test applications achieve cross-country geographic and climatic diversity and help the FAA meet its UAS research needs.
A brief description of the six test site operators and the research they will conduct into future UAS use are below:
University of Alaska. The University of Alaska proposal contained a diverse set of test site range locations in seven climatic zones as well as geographic diversity with test site range locations in Hawaii and Oregon. The research plan includes the development of a set of standards for unmanned aircraft categories, state monitoring and navigation. Alaska also plans to work on safety standards for UAS operations.
State of Nevada. Nevada’s project objectives concentrate on UAS standards and operations as well as operator standards and certification requirements. The applicant’s research will also include a concentrated look at how air traffic control procedures will evolve with the introduction of UAS into the civil environment and how these aircraft will be integrated with NextGen. Nevada’s selection contributes to geographic and climatic diversity.
New York’s Griffiss International Airport. Griffiss International plans to work on developing test and evaluation as well as verification and validation processes under FAA safety oversight. The applicant also plans to focus its research on sense and avoid capabilities for UAS and its sites will aid in researching the complexities of integrating UAS into the congested, northeast airspace.
North Dakota Department of Commerce. North Dakota plans to develop UAS airworthiness essential data and validate high reliability link technology. This applicant will also conduct human factors research. North Dakota’s application was the only one to offer a test range in the Temperate (continental) climate zone and included a variety of different airspace which will benefit multiple users.
Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi. Texas A&M plans to develop system safety requirements for UAS vehicles and operations with a goal of protocols and procedures for airworthiness testing. The selection of Texas A&M contributes to geographic and climactic diversity.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). Virginia Tech plans to conduct UAS failure mode testing and identify and evaluate operational and technical risks areas. This proposal includes test site range locations in both Virginia and New Jersey.
Across the six applicants, the FAA is confident that the agency’s research goals of System Safety & Data Gathering, Aircraft Certification, Command & Control Link Issues, Control Station Layout & Certification, Ground & Airborne Sense & Avoid, and Environmental Impacts will be met.
Each test site operator will manage the test site in a way that will give access to parties interested in using the site. The FAA’s role is to ensure each operator sets up a safe testing environment and to provide oversight that guarantees each site operates under strict safety standards.
From the start, the FAA recognized it was important to have requirements ensuring that privacy and civil liberties are protected at the test sites. Among other requirements, test site operators must comply with federal, state, and other laws protecting an individual’s right to privacy, have publicly available privacy policies and a written plan for data use and retention, and conduct an annual review of privacy practices that allows for public comment.
Under the current law, test site operations will continue until at least February 13, 2017.
After I published last month’s Is It Legal to Fly Drones for Mapping in the United States? article, I received a bit of reader feedback and attended a small conference focused on UASs for mapping. I learned and experienced a few new thoughts about UASs for mapping in the United States, so I thought I’d share them in a second installment.
In early December, I attended the UAS Precision Farming Forum, a local conference that was sponsored by Yamhill County (Oregon) and targeted at the agriculture market. Yamhill County covers 718 square miles (1,860 square kilometers) and contains a healthy number of agricultural and vineyard farms.
The conference was filled to capacity with 120 attendees, a complete lineup of speakers, and even a couple of exhibitors — not bad for a county-hosted local conference. This, and other such conferences around the United States, speaks volumes about the intense interest in UASs for agricultural uses in the U.S. For instance, the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) hosts an annual conference that attracts more than 8,000 attendees.
At the Yamhill conference, I was most interested in hearing what speakers, attendees and exhibitors were saying about the FAA rules on civilians flying UAVs. The FAA is pretty clear (at least when responding to me and others) about the rules for civilian use.
First of all, the most prolific user of UASs for mapping in Oregon seems to be Oregon State University, who possess eight Certificates of Authorization (CoA) from the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) to operate UASs for research purposes, according to Dr. Michael Wing, associate professor of Geomatics. Dr. Wing explained that applying for a CoA from the FAA is an intense process requiring a lot of detail.
PROJECT
SITE
PLATFORM
SENSOR
PARTNERS
Forest Canopy/Structure
McDonald Forest
Prioria Maveric
EO
n-Link
Search and Rescue
McDonald Forest
Aerospace Vapor/VTOL
EO/IR
n-Link
Xmas Tree Research
OSU No. Willamette
Mikrokopter VTOL
EO
OSU, n-Link
Potato Research
HAREC
Lockheed/Procerus
EO/IR
Boeing, n-Link, USDA
Potato Research
HAREC
Tetracam HawkEye
EO/IR
Boeing, n-Link, USDA
Large Scale Potato Res.
Boardman
Lockheed/Procerus
EO/IR
Boeing, n-Link, USDA
Large Scale Potato Res.
Boardman
Tetracam HawkEye
EO/IR
Boeing, n-Link, USDA
Flight Research
Olympia
Tetracam HawkEye
Boeing, n-Link
Dr. Wing also presented the bill of materials (BOM) for one of the UASs they are using, a Zephyr II.
RiteWing Zephyr II – 54″ Wingspan
Zephyr II components (per OSU):
2.4GHz Tx/Rx radio
$360
4500mAh LiPo battery
$30
Airspeed sensor
$25
ArduPilot APM 2.5
$160
Canon S100
$300
RiteWing Zephyr II
$325
TTC Radio
$86
uBlox GPS module
$76
Voltage regulator
$15
Total:
$1,377
When I asked Dr. Wing about the CoA restrictions, he said the CoAs require him to have an FAA-licensed pilot on site for each mission.
If you recall from last month’s article, the FAA was very clear in responding to my queries that civilian commercial operation of UASs in the U.S. are prohibited unless the operator possesses a CoA from the FAA. Furthermore, the FAA says that commercial operation of UASs in the U.S. airspace is not allowed. The FAA is working on rules to integrate commercial UAS operation into the U.S. NAS (National Airspace System). The local AUVSI president, in his keynote speech, essentially said the same thing.
I went to the exhibition area because I wanted to talk to the exhibitors and understand who their target market was, since commercial operations of UASs are prohibited. Their answers were interesting. Their first answer was that “farmers can fly UAS as hobbyists.” Recall that hobbyists (or modelers as the FAA refers to them) can operate UASs up to 400 feet above ground level (AGL). I asked the FAA specifically about this. They say that any commercial usage of UASs is prohibited. For example, you can take the same UAS that you fly for fun, and you are permitted to fly it below 400 feet AGL. However, once you use the same UAS for commercial purposes (such as mapping your farm), you are violating the FAA rules.
When I pushed the vendor about this, his next answer was “as long as the farmer only flies it above his or her farm, they are allowed.” While I can sort of understand the logic behind his first statement, this statement didn’t make sense to me. If he’s using it for a commercial purpose, what difference does it make if it is over his own property or not? The problem I have with the vendor’s attitude is that he has little risk. It’s not against the FAA rules to sell UASs for commercial purposes. FAA rules are only violated when someone uses a UAS for commercial purposes. The bottom line: caveat emptor (buyer beware). The FAA is likely not going to pursue the manufacturer or distributor of the UAS, only the operator (the farmer).
But, is it really against FAA rules to operate commercial UASs in the U.S.? The vendor claimed that he asked the FAA, and said that you will get a different answer from the FAA depending on who you speak to. To some extent, I understand the confusion. Furthermore, when I asked the FAA to cite examples of litigation, enforcement actions, etc., I was told I would need to file a Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA), which I did about November 12. Beyond acknowledging my request, the FAA has sent nothing. I’m told from others that they have made similar requests (months ago) and have still not received the FOIA information. This certainly casts a cloud of doubt over the confidence the FAA has in its position.
Has anyone actually tested the FAA’s position in court?
Thanks to Twitter, I linked up with an attorney who is representing a UAS operator who is being sued by the FAA for flying a UAS for commercial purposes in the United States. Attorney Brendan M. Schulman says his client’s case is the first to test the FAA rules in court. Mr. Schulman says that the FAA has no basis on which to enforce the rules. He’s arguing that the “FAA’s position is based on policy statement and not an enforceable regulation.”
Schulman’s client, Raphael Pirker, a Swiss citizen and resident, was assessed a $10,000 fine pursuant 49 U.S.C. §§46301(a)(1) and (d)(2) and 46301(a)(5). The FAA argues that Pirker:
1. On or about October 17, 2011, you were the pilot in command of a Ritewing Zephyr powered glider aircraft in the vicinity of the University of Virginia (UVA), Charlottesville,
2. The aircraft referenced above is an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS).
3. At all times relevant herein you did not possess a Federal Aviation Administration pilot certificate.
4. The aircraft referenced above contained a camera mounted on the aircraft which sent real time video to you on the ground.
5. You operated the flight referenced above for compensation.
6. Specifically, you were being paid by Lewis Communications to supply aerial photographs and video of the UVA campus and medical center.
7. You deliberately operated the above-described aircraft at extremely low altitudes over vehicles, buildings, people, streets, and structures.
8. Specifically, you operated the above-described aircraft at altitudes of approximately 10 feet to approximately 400 feet over the University of Virginia in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
9. For example, you deliberately operated the above-described aircraft in the following manner:
a. You operated the aircraft directly towards an individual standing on a UVA sidewalk causing the individual to take immediate evasive maneuvers so as to avoid being struck by your aircraft.
b. You operated the aircraft through a UVA tunnel containing moving vehicles.
c. You operated the aircraft under a crane.
d. You operated the aircraft below tree top level over a tree lined walkway.
e. You operated the aircraft within approximately 15 feet of a UVA statue.
f. You operated the aircraft within approximately 50 feet of railway tracks.
g. You operated the aircraft within approximately 50 feet of numerous individuals.
h. You operated the aircraft within approximately 20 feet of a UVA active street containing numerous pedestrians and cars.
i. You operated the aircraft within approximately 25 feet of numerous UVA buildings.
j. You operated the aircraft on at least three occasions under an elevated pedestrian walkway and above an active street.
k. You operated the aircraft directly towards a two story UVA building below rooftop level and made an abrupt climb in order to avoid hitting the building.
1. You operated the aircraft within approximately 100 feet of an active heliport at UVA.
10. Additionally, in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another, you operated the above-described aircraft at altitudes between 10 and 1500 feet AGL when you failed to take precautions to prevent collision hazards with other aircraft that may have been flying within the vicinity of your aircraft.
11. By reason of the above, you operated an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
“In this proceeding, the FAA uses those same policy statements as a pretext for applying federal aviation regulations to the operation of model airplanes. This approach violates the most basic tenets of regulatory law and the Administrative Procedures Act which require a valid notice and comment rulemaking process before legislative rules are issued. Both at the time of Mr. Pirker’s model aircraft operation in 2011, and still today, there exist no enforceable federal aviation regulations concerning the operation of civilian “drones,” whether that operation is for commercial purposes or otherwise. For the reasons set out below, the Administrator’s civil penalty is improper as a matter of law and the Complaint must be dismissed in its entirety.”
To view Schulman’s entire brief, click onFAA-v-Pirker. Per Schulman’s brief, he has asked the court to dismiss the case for reasons he outlines. He is awaiting the judge’s response. If the case is not dismissed, Schulman says the next step is discovery and a hearing.
On a related note, Schulman’s law firm, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, announced on December 18 that they launched a new practice group named Unmanned Aircraft Systems Practice Group. Following is the announcement:
In light of the increasing use of drones for commercial purposes, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP has launched a practice group dedicated to providing counsel to clients in this rapidly growing industry. The Unmanned Aircraft Systems Practice Group is a multidisciplinary team of Kramer Levin attorneys who are versed in the legal complexities of the nascent commercial drone revolution.
Emerging commercial drone technology presents a number of economic opportunities, as well as the prospect of enhanced worker safety in hazardous conditions, humanitarian benefits in search-and-rescue and disaster missions, and environmental advantages through improved agriculture, energy and infrastructure management. Kramer Levin’s new practice will provide sophisticated and creative problem-solving approaches in this uncharted legal territory.
“Unmanned aircraft technology will define the next century in countless industries in the United States and will present new legal challenges in a number of areas including regulatory policy, aviation law, property rights, and intellectual property law, to name a few,” said Paul S. Pearlman, Kramer Levin’s managing partner. “As the definitive leaders in this field, we saw an opportunity to formalize a practice area led by informed attorneys who can advise clients in a wide range of industries.”
The firm is currently representing Raphael Pirker, the world’s foremost civilian drone pilot, in the first federal case ever involving the operation of commercial drones in the United States. Kramer Levin attorneys also regularly advise individuals, corporations, venture capital firms, educational institutions and robotics developers worldwide on the use of unmanned aircraft technologies in commercial, educational, public interest and scientific applications.
“The landmark case we are litigating will have enormous regulatory and economic implications for the industry’s future,” said Brendan Schulman, special counsel at Kramer Levin who has two decades of hands-on experience with unmanned aircraft and understands how the technology works and how to apply it safely and effectively. “This is a game-changing moment for forward-thinking businesses, and we are here to assist our clients navigate legal issues so they can become the next decade’s pioneers in their industries.”
In addition to Mr. Schulman, the new practice area will include attorneys from a number of existing firm practice areas including corporate, environmental law, litigation, intellectual property, insurance, government relations, and regulatory issues.
I’ll keep you updated on the FAA v. Pirker case as it evolves.
In recent years, we’ve seen explosive growth in the Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) market segment, with most on-board navigation systems relying on GNSS or GNSS with inertial aiding. As military budgets decline, interest in civilian commercial applications is growing rapidly. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recently awarded special type certification to two UAVs for commercial Arctic operations and released a Roadmap for UAV certification. The industry is now poised for the opening of the regulation floodgates to address a growing commercial demand.
On November 21, I hosted a GPS World webcast where industry leaders in GNSS-based navigation for UAVs, for both military and civilian sectors, presented what they are doing in UAV navigation and how they see this exciting market unfolding. A record number attended; for those who were unable to attend, here’s an overview of the GPS WorldUnmanned Aircraft Navigation webinar, with answers to questions posed at the end of the article. You can still view the entire presentation through GPS World’s Webinar page.
The presenters:
Olivier Casabianca, Business Area Manager of the Trimble GNSS OEM portfolio, which includes both the Trimble and Ashtech receiver module product lines.
Eric Brewer, Senior Systems engineer for Rockwell Collins. He develops and tests guidance, navigation, and control algorithms for unmanned and optionally piloted aircraft.
Neil Gerein ofNovAtel, responsible for the navigation warfare product lines, including the GPS anti-jam antenna and SAASM receiver used on unmanned vehicle systems.
Hal Adams, Accord Technology, Chief Operating Officer, and founder of AvValues LLC, which is partnered with Accord Software & Systems, Bangalore, India.
Howard Loewen, president of MicroPilot, which supplies single-board, fully integrated UAV autopilots, ultra lightweight autopilots, and triple redundant UAV autopilots.
Trimble has a wide product line with many applications in UAVs. Its receivers are multi-constellation and multi-frequency with low power and small form-factor. High-precision modules can also use Omnistar precise point positioning (PPP) aiding, have multiple external interfaces, and can provide precise heading and attitude.
Some of the UAV solutions presented include moving baseline (relative) RTK between UAVs, and “swarms” of UAVs, autonomous landing and autonomous refueling between UAVs.
Autonomous landing.
Autonomous refueling.
Precise positioning and attitude.
Other applications include precise positioning and full GNSS attitude, and of course the Applanix line of inertial aiding sensors is a key element for aiding and GNSS-denied environments.
With the recent release of the FAA Roadmap for UAV certification and integration into the National Airspace System (NAS), our experts were asked to give us their views on what this means for the industry. Olivier Casabiance highlighted the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, which calls on the FAA to integrate UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems) into the NAS by September 2015, and extensive U.S. and European committee activity to develop standards — all leading to a requirement that GPS/GNSS navigation systems for UAVs may need to be FAA TSO (Technical Standard Order) qualified, just as they are now for manned aircraft.
This coming requirement will make extensive use of ADS-B (Automatic Dependence Surveillance Broadcast) and certified receivers, such as the Trimble/Ashtech SkyNav GG12W receiver, which is FAA qualified/certifiable, with firmware developed to RTCA DO-178B level B standards, hardware to DO-208, and meeting DO-217 special category 1 landing requirements.
SkyNav GG12W receiver.
Unmanned aircraft application.
Eric Brewer then presented Rockwell Collins’ Controlled Technologies products and outlook on unmanned aircraft. Rockwell acquired Athena Technologies some time ago, which specializes in autopilots for unmanned aircraft. Athena is the Center of Excellence for Rockwell Collins in guidance, navigation, control, and estimation technologies. Athena solutions combine GPS-coupled inertial navigation system (INS), air-data sensing, and flight-control computing. Various levels of inertial sensor performance are available with a number of analog/digital interfaces and appropriate levels of hardware environmental qualification. With single string and triplex solutions, this product family has amassed more than one million flight hours in operation. Athena also supplies a range of mission computers which are used with these autopilots.
Athena autopilots.Athena mission computers.
One of the principle UAS applications for this system is on the Navy’s Small Tactical UAS (Boeing/Insitu Scan Eagle) system, where Rockwell provides the GPS SAASM-RTK (Precision RelNav) System.
STUAS capture.Airborne anti-jam.
Each system consists of both base-station and airborne modules integrating the Rockwell 24-channel all-in-view tracking and navigation L1/L2 SAASM P-code GPS receiver (MPE-S Type II), with an external processor running custom RTK software. It provides better than 20-cm (1 sigma) 3-D relative position accuracy for a baseline of up to 30 km. Rockwell also has a number of GPS “hardening” anti-jam solutions for both airborne and missile applications.
Looking ahead, Rockwell sees reduced growth in the UAS domestic military markets and a potential split in UAS development roadmaps. Larger higher reliability, higher complexity systems may move toward NAS integration and FAA compliance, while significantly smaller and cheaper systems may end up restricted to applications outside the NAS.
Neil Gerein provided an overview of NovAtel’s receivers and capabilities, and highlighted some of NovAtel’s UAV applications. NovAtel’s OEM6 series of receivers comes in a number of different configurations with comprehensive support for all current and upcoming GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and BeiDou satellite signals.
OEM 628 – three-frequency GNSS.
OEM 638 – three-frequency GNSS, 240 channels.
OEM 615 – dual-frequency GNSS.
These receivers find (or could find) applications in UAV precision landing, payload sensor positioning, and civil anti-spoofing. And the OEM625S SAASM receiver combines civil L1/L2 GPS (including GLONASS and Galileo) with the L-3 IEC XFACTOR SAASM capability for military UAV precision navigation and landing.
Align heading generates high-precision heading and pitch angles between two receivers for real-time navigation for rotary-wing aircraft, enabling precise capture into nets and for other retrieval/capture systems. Align relative positioning generates a high-precision 3-D vector between two or more mobile receivers for high-precision monitoring and automation.
NovAtel also has the SPAN line of GPS/Inertial solutions, which may be used on UAVs for intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, reconnaissance, airborne mapping, and shipboard landings. The GAJT-AE compact null forming electronics for UAS and other small platforms provides protection of GPS L1 and L2 from interfering sources and works with a variety of four-element antenna arrays enabling flexible installation options.
GAJT-AE anti-jam system.
Gerein thinks that UAV growth has been largely due to affordability and ease of use, and allowing UAVs to have regular access to the NAS will create even more growth. The existing FAA timelines are aggressive, considering the number of interested parties, so equipment suppliers should work closely with FAA to ensure that the level of certification is appropriate for the safety of the public, while remaining affordable and practical so that the industry is not stifled.
Next, Hal Adams from Accord Technology gave his views on navigation for UAVs. Accord Technology has its base in Phoenix, with facilities in Anchorage, Alaska, while the principle R&D base is in Bangalore, India. The Accord NexNav receiver is airborne-qualified and is sold as an end-item enclosure and as a receiver board, and the NexNav-mini variant is sold as a receiver card for OEM integration.
NexNav receiver enclosure.
NexNav OEM receiver.
NexNav mini OEM receiver.
These receivers are qualified to RTCA DO-178B software and DO-254 hardware and meet FAA TSOA (C145c) requirements. So they are already at the required standard for manned (GA) aircraft use — integrators wishing to move towards FAA compliance may be able to reduce the work to meet vehicle certification requirements by incorporating receivers such as these in their UAVs.
Adams reviewed the FAA’s plans to implement ADS-B throughout the U.S., and indicated that all aircraft operating in the NAS will be required to equip and use ADS-B by 2020. The FAA is rolling out the ADS-B ground infrastructure, and air-traffic operations are already underway using ADS-B in Alaska. ADS-B requires an approved GPS source meeting FAA AC 20-165A providing it with the necessary data — and the NexNav products apparently already meet this requirement.
As far as where the FAA is going on UAVs and how regulations will affect them, Adams related statements from the FAA that UAVs, “Must be as safe as manned aircraft, including systems.”
He felt, therefore, that UAS will have to comply or operate separately, outside of the air-traffic system. UAVs wishing to operate in the NAS will likely have to be certified and approved by the FAA to NextGen standards. NextGen is the next-generation Air Traffic Control system under development by FAA.
Finally, Howard Loewen,president of MicroPilot, provided insight into MicroPilot’s UAS products, the company’s use of GNSS, and how it sees things evolving. MicroPilot has been around since 1995, so it has already watched the UAS market evolve. MicroPilot develops and fields autopilots for manned and unmanned aircraft using GPS in a number of different configurations, including consumer-level GPS, carrier-phase RTK, and moving baseline RTK.
Consumer GPS.
RTK.
Moving baseline RTK.
UAVs have a number of challenges to overcome — RF frequency allocations for control links, privacy concerns, meeting security and regulatory requirements, incorporating airborne standards into their development, developing “see-and-be-seen” (sense and avoid) technology, and competing with existing manned aircraft capability for their business. Loewen made some interesting comparisons between the use of UAVs and that of (manned) Cessna operations. While a Cessna payload can be significant, there are few flight restrictions and the technology is mature. UAVs are relatively immature and have both payload and flight restrictions. The market will have to decide if the potential for lower UAVs operating costs will be enough to win out.
Nevertheless, Micropilot is already preparing for the requirements of FAA certification for UAS autopilots and has developed hardware and software verification/validation tools.
Loewen sees pluses and minuses for UAVs in the future – FAA selection of UAS test sites will continue to be delayed, standards will begin to emerge from European efforts to integrate UAS into their airspace (maybe sooner than in the U.S,?), small UAS (sUAS) will continue to be popular in areas of the world where regulations have yet to be put in place, and there is even the possibility that the FAA may back off trying to control sUAS (because of the commercial volume?), that large UAS such as the Predator will provide no advantage over Cessna-type manned aircraft, and that the FAA will continue to delay regulations as it concerns itself over details that may not seem to be totally relevant — like the “cockpit door” issue highlighted in the recent FAA Roadmap.
There was a great deal of interest from a large audience for the webcast, and we received a number of questions before and during the webcast. Our experts did their best to provide answers wherever possible, and this Q&A is presented at the end of this article.
Overall, we seem to have covered a lot of ground in the webcast on UAV navigation – providing an insight into both existing capabilities and how some key industry leaders see the future unfolding. Almost every day there are new and interesting developments – I’m sure by now we’ve all seen the video clips from 60 Minutes and how Amazon demonstrated delivery within 30 minutes using small UAVs to pick up packages at their distribution plant and deposit them on the buyer’s doorstep, and of course the potential delivery of hot pizza right to your door.
Let’s see if some of this stuff sticks and we can actually make this sort of progress safely, usefully and efficiently.
Tony Murfin
GNSS Aerospace
Webinar Q&A
Here are some brief responses for questions received. Questions were submitted during the webinar by the audience, and answered post-webinar, in writing, by the panelists and moderator. The views expressed are those of the authors and are not necessarily supported by GPS World.
Q:What are the safety consequences for self-navigating, self-separating unmanned aircraft?
A: No rules yet published, but expected that UAS will be required to meet the same flight regulations as manned aircraft.
Q: We have light rail and buses. Is any company, agency one planning on using this technology to monitor these type of vehicles movements for security, prediction arrival, etc.?
A: This is a typical application for UAS — not aware of any current operations like this
Q: Could we use UAVs to survey bird species that go every year to the same spot to breed? I am thinking specifically on Greater Sage-Grouse.
A: This is a typical application for UAS – several wild life monitoring operations already exist
Q: I was told by a UAV manufacturer that they are not illegal if you fly below 400′. Is that true?
A: No UAS rules yet, but someone was just indicted by FAA for ‘buzzing’ building at low altitude in New York.
Q: What are the rules for the use in the private industry?
A: Rules being developed by FAA for civil operations — U.S. Congress has set deadline for integration of UAS into civil airspace by September 2015. FAA just published a “Roadmap” for how they see this process going forward.
Q: Why should general aviation pilots not be concerned about UAV collisions?
A: Rules are needed for the operation of UAS in civil airspace & these are expected to be equivalent to those for General Aviation aircraft.
Q: Is machine learning the most significant part of the UAN?
A: Do you mean UAS? Not really – most systems are pre-programmed and well defined. For use in civil airspace all systems on an aircraft need to be fixed and pre-qualified and approved – no room for changes in or-board systems.
Q: What are the flight rules in Alaska near airports or military controlled airspace for UAVs?
A: GPS and other GNSS basic unaided accuracy is several meters, with PPP or L-Band satellite corrections we get close to 1 meter and with Real Time Kinematic we can get a few centimeters. Risk (?) is always a good question, but that’s what the FAA and other certification/regulation agencies are there to ensure that risk is minimized. People have been using GPS/GNSS for over 20 years, and there are very few incidents of systems failures, rather temporary loss of signal, or degraded accuracy. This is why manned aircraft which use GPS have back-up systems and UAS will need similar redundant systems.
Q: What is the application of mUAS for agriculture and surveying?
A: Lot of activity in high precision surveying using UAS is already underway. Crop spraying using helicopter UAS has been in use in Japan for many years – its expected use will grow exponentially in these areas when there is open access to airspace.
Q: What FAA regulations prevent organizations from flying at low elevations, if any?
A: No rules yet published, but expected that UAS will be required to meet the same flight regulations as manned aircraft. There is a chart in Accord’s briefing showing the layout of NAS with the ADS-B requirements.
Q: How do payload applications access GNSS data, Position, Navigation, Timing, and utilize the precise 1PPS for synchronization if the Navigation function is NOT to be compromised?
A: Payload applications and the navigation function typically use separate GNSS receivers to ensure the navigation function is not compromised. Actually, for manned aircraft ADS-B, per FAA the ADS-B GPS source must meet AC 20-165A and can be independent of nav functions, including GPS based navigators. FAA will know “exactly where the platform is “lost” and to a high degree of confidence.”
Q: GPS spoofing has been demonstrated by the University of Texas as an effective means to redirect a drone aircraft. What is the industry doing to protect against command/control & navigation hijacking?
A: UAVs operated by the US Government and Allied Forces can use SAASM receivers to protect against spoofing. For civil user, multi-GNSS receivers with positioning backups such as inertial technology are also effective against spoofing attacks.
As mentioned above, a SAASM is the best way to prevent spoofing. Jamming is also of particular concern, and Antijam GPS technology is a good way to mitigate the effects of jamming.
Q: What is the best technology to pursue as a backup to GPS? (e.g. D-LORAN, Magnetic Field Nav., Cell Tower Triangulation, etc.)
A: GNSS+Inertial is a way to backup GNSS only in GNSS denied environments. Could be use to augment the information (heading / attitude on top of position) or for continuous positioning…
Procedures are the primary back-up for manned aircraft. If I loose transponder or comms, etc., there is a procedure for operations in those events. If I loose comms the FAA increases separation, clears airspace, etc., to help insure no conflicts. UAS will likely have to have some mitigation like manned procedures. Of course, with a person on the flight deck, it is a somewhat different. I think there will have to be new considerations, like lose of link to the UAS and alternative on the platform and with the NAS manager (ATC). If a pilot looses consciousness on the flight deck, it is kind of like a UAS loosing the command link. So, what happens with person on flight deck if that person cannot operate the aircraft? Seems problematic to resolve or mitigate.
This is a hot topic of research. Some current solutions include using Magnetometers and Deduced Reckoning (i.e. using a wind estimate and airspeed measurements). There is also research into using image-based navigation (there are some details about this in Rockwell slides).
Q: Could be GNSS a stand-alone sensor for navigation, and what is the GNSS coverage above 80 N/S parallel?
Actually, during GBAS International Working Group session in Seattle this summer there were a couple of presentation regarding ionospheric effects on GNSS which seem to support the following statement:
Challenges for GNSS in the Arctic
For GNSS, presently GPS and GLONASS but in the future also for Galileo, the performance in the Arctic region is reduced compared to the performance obtained by users at mid-latitudes. The reasons are mainly the satellite-receiver geometry and the ionospheric effects on the satellite signals, but also users do not have the benefits of satellite based augmentation systems (SBAS) at a larger scale.
Q: el % de errores y eficases de estos, y si en poco tiempo podrian activarse y desaptivarse automaticamente segun sea el caso
A: We didn’t have any Spanish speakers, but this is our best-guess answer. Most GNSS receivers have some form of Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (RAIM) and airborne systems need to conform to Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS), which define error rates for all known situations.
Q: Which industries will see the greatest increase in usage of unmanned systems once the FAA opens up regulations for integrating unmanned aerial vehicles into society?
A: Its likely that the most intense civilian applications of UAS have yet to be invented. But we do know that crop & pipeline monitoring, precision and non-precision surveying, flying-camera applications for all forms of news and security, potential package delivery, and even vehicle traffic monitoring are popular applications waiting for more open access to airspace.
Q: Per the FAA’s recently released Civil UAS Roadmap, what exactly constitutes a “small UAS (sUAS) with very limited operational range?”
A: It seems that the FAA has yet to publish regulations which would define sUAS. These apparently have been drafted and are still under consideration by FAA.
Q: Per the FAA’s recently released Civil UAS Roadmap, what exactly constitutes a “small UAS (sUAS) with very limited operational range?”
A: The FAA has yet to publish regulations which would define sUAS. These apparently have been drafted for some time and are still under consideration by FAA.
Q: What is the risk of the aircraft crashing due to a last minute wind gust as it approaches the wire (referring to the Rockwell Collins product used to land the UAV on the wire on the ship)?
A: The safety is evaluated through both simulation and flight testing. The wind gust disturbance rejection is a primary constraint, and the operational envelope (wind envelope, ship motion, wind over deck, capture speed) is selected to ensure that risks are maintained at acceptably low levels.
Q: Question for all: Can any of these products produce primitive data (pseudorange, carrier phase) prior to demodulation of an ephemeris. (We are looking for the fastest possible acquisition time.)
A: Yes, we (Rockwell Collins) have products available which can output uncorrected pseudorange and carrier phase before receipt of ephemeris data. Feel free to email me for more details.
Q: Have any of these products been used in missile range-safety applications? (Missile = BIG UAS)
Explosive growth in the UAV market is the focus of a free GPS World webinar this Thursday. Most on-board navigation systems in UAVs — unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) — rely on GNSS or GNSS with inertial aiding.
As military budgets decline, interest in civilian commercial applications is growing rapidly. The FAA recently awarded special type certification to two UAVs for commercial Arctic operations, and the industry is now poised for the opening of the regulation floodgates to address a growing commercial demand.
In Thursday’s webcast, “Unmanned Aircraft Navigation,” participants will hear from industry leaders in GNSS-based navigation for UAVs, in both the military and civilian sectors: they will tell us what they are doing in UAV navigation and where they see this exciting market going.
The webinar will be held Thursday, November 21, 10 a.m. PST / 1 p.m. EST / 6 p.m. GMT. Registration is free.
Guest Speakers
Olivier Casabianca, Business Area Manager, Trimble GNSS OEM
Casabianca works on the Trimble GNSS OEM portfolio which includes both the Trimble and Ashtech receiver module product lines. He joined Trimble in 2011 with the Ashtech acquisition where he was driving the Ashtech GNSS Technology roadmap and OEM portfolio. He has worked in the GNSS industry since 1997 and has held various positions in Engineering (RTK, GNSS Heading and Attitude firmware engineer, program management, engineering manager) and Marketing. He is located in Nantes area of France.
Hal Adams, Chief Operating Officer, Accord Technology
Hal Adams is founder and Managing Director of AvValues LLC which partnered with Accord Software & Systems, Bangalore, India to form Accord Technology LLC of Phoenix, Arizona USA. Adams has more than 35 years of civil and military aerospace and avionics experience in the aerospace industry, including senior leadership positions in general management, product and business strategies, development activities with Northwest Airlines, Lockheed-Martin, Litton Aero Products (now Northrop Grumman), Rockwell Collins Avionics, Thales Avionics and Aviation Communications and Surveillance Systems (ACSS – an L-3 Communications and Thales Joint Venture). As a co-founder of Phoenix Aerospace Consulting Group, Adams’ oversight responsibility was leading the NexNav business area which provided the industry’s first certified GPS WAAS Beta-3 sensors to the commercial aviation marketplace.
Neil Gerein, Defense Product Manager, NovAtel
Neil Gerein joined NovAtel Inc. as a GPS Software Engineer in 2001. Since 2009 he has worked as the Defense Product Manager for NovAtel. He is responsible for the navigation warfare product lines, including the GAJT GPS Anti-Jam antenna and OEM625S SAASM receiver used in unmanned vehicle systems. He holds B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in Electrical Engineering from the University of Saskatchewan, where he specialized in digital signal processing. Neil currently serves on the Council of the Institute of Navigation, as well as on the executive of the Alberta regional section of the Institute of Navigation.
Eric Brewer, Senior Systems Engineer, Rockwell Collins
Eric develops and tests guidance, navigation, and control algorithms for unmanned and optionally piloted aircraft. He was a key contributor to Rockwell Collins’ damage tolerance program, which successfully recovered a sub-scale F18 after simulated battle damage ejecting more than 75% of the right wing. As lead systems engineer, Eric spearheaded the successful integration of SAASM RTK on the STUAS program. He received a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Penn State in 2008, and an M.S. in Mechanical Engineering specializing in autonomous rotorcraft from Virginia Tech in 2009. When he’s not programming away in MATLAB, Eric enjoys hiking, rock climbing, and testing the damage tolerance capabilities of R/C airplanes and helicopters.
Howard William Loewen, President, MicroPilot Inc.
Howard is the president of MicroPilot Inc. Howard has a degree in Electrical Engineering with an option in Computer Science and a Masters degree in Computer Science both from the University of Waterloo. Howard has been involved in the UAV industry since 1994 when he started MicroPilot. Under Howard’s leadership, MicroPilot was the first to introduce a single board, fully integrated UAV autopilot into the market, the first to introduce ultra lightweight autopilots, the first to introduce a triple redundant UAV autopilot among others. MicroPilot has continued this tradition of leadership with its recent introduction of XTENDERvalidate a requirements management tool designed specifically for UAV system integrators.
On November 7, the FAA released a new roadmap for the “Integration of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS)” — which it is hoped will provide improved guidance for those extremely interested operators, manufacturers, systems suppliers and those with pending civilian applications of unmanned aircraft.
The forward to the Roadmap by FAA Administrator Michael Huerta says,
‘This roadmap outlines the actions and considerations needed to enable UAS integration into the NAS. The roadmap also aligns proposed FAA actions with Congressional mandates from the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. This plan also provides goals, metrics, and target dates for the FAA and its government and industry partners to use in planning key activities for UAS integration.”
The FAA, acting through the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office, aims to enable the integration of UAS safely and efficiently into the NAS. To do so, the FAA is working with stakeholders — manufacturers, vendors, industry trade associations, technical standards organizations, academic institutions, research and development centers, governmental agencies, and other regulators.
The premise is that UAS will be allowed to operate in the NAS, but in so doing cannot reduce existing capacity or decrease safety, cannot negatively impact current operators/operations, and cannot increase the risk to airspace users or people or property on the ground — any more than the integration of other new or novel technology. While progress has so far been significant, many challenges and opportunities apparently lie ahead.
Up to the recent Restricted Type Certification of a couple of unmanned aircraft systems by FAA — namely the Boeing/Insitu Scan Eagle and the AeroVironment’s Puma AE — operators have been and still are required to apply to the FAA for individual Certificates of Authorization (CoA) for each and every U.S. application of UAS. The FAA Roadmap is intended to provide an initial estimate of timing and to list tasks and considerations that will ultimately enable UAS integration into the NAS for the planning purposes of the UAS community.
Boeing/Insitu Scan Eagle loaded for launch.
Commercial operations that the FAA envisages include:
security awareness;
disaster response, including search and support to rescuers;
communications and broadcast, including news/sporting event coverage;
cargo transport;
spectral and thermal analysis;
critical infrastructure monitoring, including power facilities, ports, and pipelines;
commercial photography, aerial mapping and charting, and advertising.
Other commercial and public applications that the FAA might also want to add to the increasing demand for airspace access include:
crop monitoring;
precision surveying and GIS;
wildlife monitoring;
(ground) traffic monitoring and control;
firefighting support;
police services;
many, many more applications which will emerge rapidly once regulations permit ready access to airspace.
Of course, the FAA controls an ever increasingly complex airspace to which certified manned aircraft already have regulated access – it’s only fitting that existing safety and commercial use be primarily maintained and in no way compromised. Successful demonstration of UAS to achieve demanding communications, navigation, and surveillance performance will be essential.
U.S. National Airspace System.
The Roadmap quotes the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Circular 328, “Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Circular”:
“A number of Civil Aviation Authorities (CAA) have adopted the policy that UAS must meet the equivalent levels of safety as manned aircraft… In general, UAS should be operated in accordance with the rule governing the flight of manned aircraft and meet equipment requirements applicable to the class of airspace within which they intend to operate…To safely integrate UAS in non-segregated airspace, the UAS must act and respond as manned aircraft do. Air Traffic, Airspace and Airport standards should not be significantly changed. The UAS must be able to comply with existing provisions to the greatest extent possible.”
Another significant FAA statement:
“Except for some special cases, such as small UAS (sUAS) with very limited operational range, all UAS will require design and airworthiness certification to fly civil operations in the NAS.”
So, having set the tone that UAS will have to grow up in a major way to become equivalent to existing manned aircraft and to comply with virtually the same rules, the Roadmap goes on to provide much more detail of what will be required.
The FAA is working on UAS regulations — this is not really a big surprise. It would seem that there is significant effort underway to get rules in place, detailed rules which not everyone in the UAS industry will welcome. One scenario is that the huge range of UAS suppliers that we see regularly at the AUVSI annual convention/exhibit could be slimmed down if the market indeed transitions to commercial operations from the current level of military applications, and only the big companies who can afford to comply will remain. Reduced competition usually means increased costs for users, so this may not sit well with the market.
Then there are more difficulties in adapting existing airborne regulations for commercial aircraft to UAS and UAS applications. An example is given of regulations for commercial transport cockpit doors — what’s a “cockpit” when you think of UAS, and where’s the “door” for a ground-based control system in a mobile trailer, or a handheld iPad flying a small quad-rotor air vehicle? (Maybe a different thought process is required here.)
Then the air-traffic control system has to absorb flight of unmanned aircraft in an already overcrowded route network system. Of course, only some UAS operations will be intertwined with regular commercial transport air traffic, but there are huge numbers of “less-disciplined” General Aviation fixed-wing and rotor aircraft with which UAS are bound to interact. So ATC has to understand, control and regulate that interaction. Surely these are common-sense statements which most people would support?
Major technology challenges are anticipated due to the absence of an on-board pilot.
“Removing the pilot from the aircraft creates a series of performance considerations between manned and unmanned aircraft that need to be fully researched and understood to determine acceptability and potential impact on safe operations in the NAS.”
There’s that dreaded word — “researched.” For anyone in the business of selling UAS or UAS systems, including GNSS-based guidance systems, the need for potentially prolonged research may spell death for a nascent business, currently bursting with potential!
Development of Sense and Avoid and Control and Communications (C2) systems with adequate performance are seen as the principle challenges, so a phased introduction of UAS is anticipated while these core systems are fielded and matured over a lengthy period. The current CoA approach is termed “accommodation,” while evolution is expected towards more compliant vehicles and systems during the integration phase — ultimately, with fewer and fewer CoAs. Although the Roadmap talked about “broad timelines,” this key section doesn’t try to predict how long this all might take.
The FAA summarizes the accommodation phase as:
Accommodation of UAS in the NAS through evaluation and improvement of safety mitigations.
Work with industry and the Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to review the operational, pilot, and airworthiness regulations.
Development of required standards to support technological solutions to identified operational gaps (Minimum Operational Performance Standards [MOPS]).
Safety case validation for UAS operations in NAS — collect/analyze operational and safety data.
Robust research, modeling, and simulation for UAS Sense and Avoid, C2, and human factors.
The Integration phase is characterized by adoption of FAA regulations through certification of compliant UAS and UAS systems — the balance between CoA operations and regular operations in the NAS shifts toward more compliant, and presumably more unrestricted, access within FAA regulations. With UAS and UAS systems achieving airworthiness certificates, and trained and certificated UAS pilots filing regular flight plans for UAS operations, integration moves towards adoption. “All UAS must file and fly an IFR flight plan.” Lessons learned in earlier phases are moved into updated regulations and incorporated into equipment capabilities, and certificated UAS get increasingly better access to the airspace they require.
FAA also makes mention that in the integration phase, the six proposed UAS FAA test ranges will be selected. This has been in the works for considerable time. The assessment of proposals and award of contracts had initially been delayed on the basis of privacy questions, but these now appear to have been adequately addressed to allow these key parts of the UAS integration program to move ahead. A principle objective of the test ranges is to help provide a verification mechanism for safe operations before unmanned aircraft are integrated into the NAS. Tasks envisaged include development and proving of:
manned-unmanned operations,
certification standards and air traffic requirements,
coordination and leveraging of National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and DoD resources,
civil and public unmanned aircraft systems,
coordination with NextGen (a major NAS update program currently being undertaken by FAA).
Integration will have been successfully established when new operational rules and associated standards, policies, and procedures have been established for small UAS and other UAS, and C2 link standards have been defined for integrity, latency, and continuity. FAA will also need to have accepted Minimum Aircraft System Performance Specifications (MASPS) to enable development of detailed MOPS and the FAA should have published policy and operational guidance to define acceptable methods to comply with operational rules in accordance with an acceptable UAS certification basis for each applicant, along with flight-crew training and certification standards.
For the final “Evolutionary” phase of adoption of UAS, it’s expected that there will be seamless operations of certified UAS and crew members in the evolving NAS; FAA will have published Type Standard Orders (TSOs) based on system level MOPS; and certified Sense and Avoid algorithms will be available for collision avoidance and self-separation that are interoperable with evolving NextGen ATC systems and manned collision avoidance systems.
Quite a long list of extensive requirements to meet for a new industry that, so far, has been largely unregulated and has, so far, been used to providing rapid military/governmental solutions that prove themselves operationally over time. More empirical development to satisfy specific operational needs than compliance to published regulations. This isn’t exactly a sea-state change for the industry as it sits today, but perhaps rather a shift into another dimension.
To even get itself onto this road, let alone follow this extensive 74-page roadmap, the UAS industry may have to completely re-invent itself. But with military sales declining, the funding to take on even the simplest of these requirements may be drying up. The tendency for operators may be to try to cling to the CoA system indefinitely and just live with the hassle of applying for FAA authorization each time. FAA’s seeding of commercial applications using Restricted Type Certification of existing platforms that use existing uncertified systems and payloads may also be a way out for some time. If the Scan Eagle can gain limited access to take on commercial, paying applications because it has +800,000 proven military flight hours, eventually other UAS may also creep into some sort of equivalent eligibility. And if we manage to operate safely without major headlines, the FAA may relent in some of its extensive requirements.
Then again, the FAA just published a rather extensive roadmap, with separate backup, which says it has other ideas in mind….
I asked a couple of industry experts what they thought of the Roadmap. One comment was, “To me the real challenge is flexibility in the plan such that it will be a reasonable process to adapt to changes based on findings, experiences as this goes forward.” I agree, and believe that the FAA has gone to some length to make it clear that this is the first issue of the Roadmap, that there will be updates as more is learned. The whole process is one of learning from what has gone before in earlier stages.
Please join us Thursday, November 21, for a GPS World webcast on Unmanned Aircraft Navigation. We’ll have a number of industry leaders who will present their companies’ experience and capabilities in navigation for UAS, along with how they see this exciting market segment progressing, and how the FAA’s plans could impact their vision of the future for UAS navigation systems suppliers. Register today for free.
There is no doubt about it: drones (also referred to as UAVs and UAS) are a disruptive technology that will significantly impact geospatial professionals not only in the U.S., but around the world. While the mainstream media has mostly pushed the panic button with regards to privacy and drones, you don’t often read a discussion about using drones for mapping.
3D Matterhorn image produced from senseFly’s drone mapping effort.
In Switzerland, where drones weighing less than 30 kg (66 lbs) are legal to operate without a license as long as the operator maintains line of sight, drones mapped the famous Matterhorn Mountain (4,478 meters/14,692 feet) in the Swiss alps, at a resolution of 20 cm. This illustrates the power of drones for 3D mapping, and mapping in general. More efficient and less costly than traditional photogrammetry and airborne lidar, there is no doubt in my mind you will begin working with drones and/or data collected via drones in the near future. Of course, mapping the Matterhorn in 3D at 20-cm resolution is a monumental effort. Even using drones, senseFly reported that it took 11 flights, 5 hours and 40 minutes of flight time, and a total of 2,188 images to process covering 2,800 hectares (~6,920 acres). senseFly didn’t report how many manhours of post-processing the Matterhorn project required, but you know it must be a healthy number. Also, remember that Swiss regulations require that the drone operator must be within “direct eye contact” of the drone at all times, so you can bet the senseFly team had to do some serious mountain climbing.
While generating precise 3D images of a mountain certainly push the limits of drone technology, there are plenty of uses for mapping drones that make a lot of sense and are less complex. The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems (AUVSI) reports that in the United States, in the first three years of UAS integration more than 70,000 jobs will be created with an economic impact of $13.6 billion. AUVSI further reports that by 2025, the jobs number will increase to 100,000 jobs, and the economic value to $82 billion. Earlier this year, The Daily Beast reported that agriculture may end up being the largest user of drone technology. Other uses, according to AUVSI, include wildfire mapping, environmental mapping, disaster management, power-line surveys, oil and gas exploration, and general aerial mapping.
So what are we waiting for? Let’s start flying!
Not so fast. In many countries in the world, you can purchase a drone mapping kit and start flying tomorrow. Last month, I witnessed the massive offering of drones at the Intergeo 2013 conference. Copters and fixed-wing aircraft in all shapes and sizes were on display.
However, in the U.S. it’s not so easy. In fact, it’s illegal to operate any drone for mapping unless you have a special permit from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). If you think XYZ Corp. down the road who is using drones for mapping have such a permit, you are wrong. Despite the rumors and gossip you may have heard, and the fact that many companies are using drones for mapping in the U.S., it is not legal, by any stretch of the imagination.
Let’s have a look at what the FAA regulations state.
The FAA divides drone users into two categories: public and civil.
Public Users
Examples of public users by the FAA include the U.S. military and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, as well as other government agencies. Public users must apply for a Certificate of Waiver or Certificate of Authorization (COA) and adhere to the following guidelines:
The operator is required establish the drone’s airworthiness either from FAA certification, a Department of Defense airworthiness statement, or by other means.
The operator must demonstrate that a collision with another aircraft or other airspace user is extremely improbable.
The operator must comply with appropriate cloud and terrain clearance requirements.
The PIC (Pilot in Command), the operator in control of the drone, must maintain minimum qualifications and currency requirements.
An observer must be present to observe the drone and surrounding airspace via line-of-sight on the ground or via chase aircraft.
The PIC and observer must be within, generally speaking, one mile horizontally and 3,000 feet vertically of the drone.
Direct communications between the PIC and Observer must be maintained at all times.
As you imagine, these requirements are not easy to meet and issued to a select few entities. if you want to take a look at the list of Certificates of Authorization issued by the FAA, click here and scroll down to find links to redacted CoA awards that aren’t exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
As of February 15, 2013, the FAA reports there were 347 active COAs.
Civil Users
Civil users include any entity other than Public users, and includes commercial users.
Civil users must obtain an FAA airworthiness certificate just like you would need for any type of aircraft such as an airliner.
The FAA is issuing special airworthiness certificates in the experimental category for testing, market survey, and training of drones. The FAA is very clear that no Certificate of Authorization (CoA) or experimental certificates will be issued to commercial users. In fact, the FAA specifically states that drone users awarded an experimental certificate are not licensed to use drones for “hire or compensation.”
That’s it: short, sweet and to the point.
What about model aircraft users?
Interestingly enough, model aircraft users are allowed to operate drones and have a surprising amount flexibility in doing so. The guidelines for model aircraft users can be found here, but essentially the only concrete rules are that the “hobby” drone cannot exceed 400 feet AGL (above ground level), and that when flying within three miles of an airport, notify the airport operator. That’s it!
Even more interesting is that some hobby-class drones can be very useful for businesses. For example, last month I bought an AR Drone 2.o for US$370. The manufacturer calls it a quadracopter. It operates like a helicopter with four rotor blades. It’s controlled by an app that runs on your smartphone or tablet. I use a Samsung Galaxy III to control it. It’s amazingly easy to control with my smartphone.
AR Drone 2.0
I took the AR Drone 2.0 to the Field Technology Conference to demonstrate it and give conference attendees an idea of what is possible for very little expense. The response from attendees was a little surprising. I didn’t expect geospatial users to appreciate the limited capabilities of the AR Drone 2.0, but attendees spoke of applications like checking birds’ nests for eggs and close-up inspection of structures that aren’t easily accessible. After spending some time flying it, even I began to think about the inspection app and the ability to create video fly-throughs of golf courses, environmental areas, proposed developments, etc. The AR Drone 2.0’s forward-looking, high-definition camera generates stunningly crisp video.
So, that begs the question…
Why can’t a user, following the hobby rules (fly below 400 feet AGL), use the AR Drone 2.0 or any other drone for commercial purposes?
The answer is simple. The FAA rules state that you can use a drone all day long as a hobbyist (following the AC 91-57 rules), but once you start using it for commercial purposes, you are violating the law. Some drone users have said that to skirt the FAA rules, they don’t charge for drone flight time, but just the image processing (data) after the flight. I don’t think this concept has been tested in court yet, but the FAA says this activity is illegal.
“They would be violating FAA rules,” says FAA Spokesperson Alison Duquette. “Please read this policy link. The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken understanding that they are legally operating under the authority of AC 91-57. AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.”
To understand how serious the FAA is about enforcing the no-business-use of hobby rules, I asked the FAA for a list of enforcement citations, cease and desist orders, etc. I was told I had to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, which I did, but I’m warned by colleagues not to expect a speedy response.
Check out the following short (three-minute) video news report on a company in Minnesota that was “grounded” by the FAA for flying a drone for commercial use.
The good news is that in January 2012, the U.S. Congress ordered and funded the FAA to figure out how to integrate commercial drone use into the U.S. airspace by the end of 2015. In September 2013, the FAA released a document entitled “UAS Comprehensive Plan” and a document entitled “Integration of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) Roadmap“. If you’re really interested in learning more about drone usage in the U.S. and understand the FAA’s perspective, it’s worth a few minutes to scan these documents.
It’s going to be fascinating to see what rules the FAA establishes for commercial drone usage. Don’t be surprised if the PIC (Pilot in Command) must be a licensed pilot, and expect tough restrictions on altitude constraints, flight time, visibility, and control tower communications. I have my private pilot license (although I haven’t flown as PIC in years), and I recall that FAA rules state that you can fly as low as 500 feet AGL over rural areas and 1,000 feet AGL over populated areas. That doesn’t give commercial drone operators a lot of room to work with if they want to map a wide area.
When looking at geospatial technology, I like to use the analogy that GIS software is the engine and GIS data is the fuel. We have many choices of powerful GIS software engines (Esri, Intergraph, QGIS, GlobalMapper, MapInfo, etc.). That technology remains relatively unchanged. Before the software vendors harp on me, yes, I get that new bells and whistles are added to software every year to enhance software functionality. Yes, maybe there’s a new database technology that indexes massive databases significantly faster. Yes, maybe there’s a new software tool that makes generating 3D visualizations or augmented reality much easier and faster. But just like your automobile, motorcycle, train, airplane, etc., they all need fuel to run. Data is the fuel.
The analogy doesn’t fit perfectly. After fossil fuels are used once, they are not reusable. Obviously, that’s not the same for GIS data. Some GIS data, like street data, is used daily over and over again by millions of people around the world in their Garmin, TomTom, and Magellan auto navigation units. However, in the fossil-fuel world, engines and fuel are matched reasonably well. In the geospatial world, the engines and fuel aren’t matched. The GIS fuel (data) is far behind the engine (software). In other words, GIS software is starving for data. There are so many applications for GIS yet to be realized, and vast majority of the unrealized apps are due to the lack of data.
For example, imagine carrying your iPad (or other tablet) in the street and pointing it down at pavement. Imagine, on the screen of your iPad, being able to “see” all of the infrastructure underneath the pavement such as water lines, sewer lines, and communications lines. What’s keeping those types of apps from being deployed today? The answer: the lack of accurate geospatial data.
The lack of geospatial data is no more apparent than at the 2013 Esri International User Conference in July and the Intergeo conference in Germany earlier this month.
In the exhibition areas, three trends were clearly apparent:
1. Mobile devices
2. UAVs
3. High-precision GNSS receivers
Clearly, all three of these are related to collecting GIS data.
Following are some comments and photos of each trend.
Mobile Devices
A few short years ago, mobile devices suitable for GIS data collection were a specialty item, and we had a few limited choices. Ever since the smartphone explosion and Apple introducing the iPad, it’s been mobile devices galore. A tremendous number of consumer mobile devices have been introduced. Most have failed, but the trend has generated a tremendous amount of R&D effort that manufacturers have leveraged to make industrial mobile devices for the geospatial community, such as the following:
Most, if not all, of these devices are designed and manufactured in China.
Juniper Systems is one of the few remaining U.S.-based rugged handheld manufacturers, introducing the new Archer 2 at Intergeo.
UAVs
There’s no denying that UAVs are going to play a large role in geospatial applications. In some geographic regions of the world, they are already being deployed for mining, agriculture, accident reconstruction and other mapping applications. The low-cost and and quick, convenient deployment make it a very attractive technology for time-sensitive and cost-sensitive applications that require imagery.
In the U.S., it is illegal to use UAVs for commercial applications unless you have a Certificate of Authorization from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which are only granted to some universities and some government agencies. President Obama ordered the FAA to generating guidelines for integrating the use of commercial UAVs into the U.S. airspace by 2015. For the latest FAA progress on matters regarding UAVs, you can visit this FAA web page.
The current FAA rules are a bit odd. In the U.S., you are allowed to fly “hobby” UAVs up to 400 feet above the ground if you’re at least 1/4 mile away from an airport. If you take that same UAV and abide by the same restrictions as hobbyists, but use it for commercial purposes, it’s illegal. Take a look at this article by NBC News.
High-Precision GNSS Receivers
I’ve been writing about this for awhile, but it’s worth mentioning that RTK GNSS receivers are getting cheaper and cheaper. Whereas in the past, there have only been a handful of RTK GNSS receiver vendors, there are now at least twice as many as before, and increasing every year. This is good for the user community because it increases competition. The result is better products at lower prices. This trend will continue.
NSPS (Formerly ACSM) Radio Hour
Last week, I was a guest along with David Doyle (retired NGS Geodesist) on the NSPS Radio Hour discussing a variety of GNSS-related items such as the U.S. federal government shutdown and LightSquared. A recording of the radio show is available in MP3 format. You can listen or download it here.
To fly a UAV in the U.S., you’d better be able to avoid any other aircraft — and ADS-B is one component of that capability. When the FAA and agencies around the world get their UAV regulations aligned with those levied on passenger-carrying aircraft, GNSS receivers on board UAVs will likely need to be qualified to equivalent standards. One company is already there.
When I was wandering around the show floor at the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) in Washington, D.C., in August, I got a pleasant surprise when I bumped into an old friend I knew from Calgary. Jayanta Ray was a grad student at the University of Calgary (U of C) when I was at NovAtel a few years ago. The students of the GNSS courses at U of C were often at local Calgary ION chapter meetings I organized or attended; there were also a few joint industry-university projects, and there were many, many discussions. So meeting Jayanta (Jay) at the Accord Systems/NexNav booth was a pleasant surprise, and it was good to renew our acquaintance.
This got me thinking that maybe some of that U of C receiver magic had somehow found its way through Jay into the airborne qualified receivers that Accord Technology is offering for UAVs. Jay is actually a member of the GPS World Advisory Board, and provides a great overview of what’s good and what’s different about airborne qualified receivers in this month’s issue of GPS World.
NexNav mini is also qualified for airborne GPS and ADS-B use.NexNav mini is also qualified for airborne GPS and ADS-B use.
Accord Technology is based in Phoenix, Arizona, and is the U.S. arm of Accord Software and Systems of Bangalore India, specializing in FAA-certified airborne versions of Accord’s GPS receivers.
At AUVSI, one of the hot topics was “Sense and Avoid” — if you are to fly a UAV in the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS), you’d better be able to avoid any other aircraft, and maybe also be able to tell other aircraft in the NAS where you are. ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast) is one component of that capability. ADS-B uses a network of ground stations that relay ADS-B transmissions from aircraft (called ADS-B Out) in the NAS to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air-traffic management system, and the signal is also available to aircraft flying in the system if they are equipped to listen to the message (ADS-B In). Air Traffic Control (ATC) can then verify that you are where you are supposed to be, and your actual position shows up more readily on their tracking systems. Right now, ATC makes extensive use of radar tracking and aircraft transponder signals to track aircraft — ADS-B will be more efficient, less costly to maintain, and is capable of aircraft-to-aircraft position reporting. By 2020, it will be mandatory if flying within the U.S. NAS.
The other part of this story is that, eventually, when the FAA and other agencies around the world get their UAV certification regulations aligned with those levied on passenger-carrying aircraft, GNSS receivers on board UAVs will likely need to be qualified to equivalent airborne standards.
Accord has already done an enormous amount of work to qualify its NexNav receivers for both requirements, and was at the AUVSI conference to let the UAV community know that these receivers are available now. If you were developing a new UAV now, with a view to selling lots into the anticipated wide range of commercial applications, its certainly going to help your case with the certification authorities to install as much off-the-shelf certified avionics as you can. Accord already sells these receivers to a number of general aviation system manufacturers, and also supplies stand-alone ‘TSO’ed” receivers in enclosures for use on a number of aircraft types. When an airborne receiver is granted the TSO (Technical Standard Order) designation by the FAA, it recognizes that the receiver has been designed, built and qualified to stringent airborne technical requirements and is authorized by FAA for use on aircraft.
So how does a company with its HQ in India get to hold an FAA TSO for a GPS receiver? Well, other than taking years to develop the receiver in accordance with approved development standards, document the hardware and software design, and conduct test and verification activities, the company also proves to the FAA that the receiver meets the FAA-specified airborne GPS functional requirements. Loads of engineering work — and then you have to convince FAA that you did it all and did it right.
Accord in Bangalore actually teamed up with AvValues in Phoenix to form a joint venture known as Accord Technology (AT) to work the project together. Most of the original receiver development work was done in Bangalore, while AT in Phoenix became responsible as the design authority, and for production, certification activities, customer service, product support, and business development. Naturally, Accord in India still does ongoing engineering support and supplies receiver cards to AT under contract. The other twist to the story is that final assembly and test is carried out at the AT facility in Anchorage, Alaska, where the TSO was approved by the local FAA office.
But Accord isn’t only into airborne receivers. The company has been around since 1991 and has significant engineering resources (around 400 electronic and computer engineers) — with more than 700 man-years of GNSS R&D and production involvement. Here are some examples of the other GNSS products which Accord has in its technology/product inventory:
GPS L1 RF down-converter.
GPS RF & baseband.
GPS module.
GPS Spacecraft Positioning System (SPS).
Time-code generator.
SPS was developed for the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) and has been flown on all Indian low-Earth-orbit satellites, including IRS P4/5/6, TES, CartoSat, SRE and OceanSat.
IRNSS Reference Receiver.
The Reference Receiver is fielded in the ground-monitoring network for the Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS), which may mean that the ground network is using at least dual-redundant reference data, as NovAtel has also provided a similar receiver for IRNSS. Accord is also working on IRNSS user receivers.
Other receivers include high-dynamic GPS-GLONASS receivers, GPS/GLONASS/Gagan SBAS receivers, an internal GPS/GLONASS/Gagan simulator, and a handheld GPS/Gagan receiver with integrated three-axis compass and pressure altitude sensor — the latter used by a number of paramilitary forces.
Accord GNSS roamap.
And as can be seen from the Accord GNSS Roadmap, they aren’t done yet!
You might ask yourself, where in the heck did all this come from? Certainly, there is an element of internal support with work for ISRO and Indian forces, but you don’t jump into this without some background. Well, the principle activity for Accord has been and still remains high-integrity software development for avionics systems — this is probably what Accord is known for in Europe and to a certain extent in North America. Its customer list for RTCA DO-178B/C airborne software sounds like a who’s who of aircraft and helicopter manufacturers — including Airbus, Boeing, Mitsubishi, Gulfstream Eurocopter/AugustaWestland/NHIndustries, Sikorsky, and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).
Accord’s activities have included complete and partial life-cycle activities — all the way from requirements definition, software design and development, to independent verification and validation. For those of us who’ve worked in this field, we recognize that these are considerable technical capabilities — indeed, more than 50 engineers at Accord have been trained in the art of airborne software development by FAA-qualified engineering representatives. Working in this area and successfully bringing avionics systems through the qualification/certification process, companies either become capable or break all their bones trying! Clearly, Accord has been schooled in systems that are at the forefront of avionics technology, and has passed through the practical fire of qualifying airborne systems successfully.
So, it’s not really surprising that Accord went on to spin off into airborne GNSS receiver development once it gained wide visibility and knowledge of aviation technology and began to look at related markets. And with the Indian government policy of developing indigenous industries, Accord likely had some internal Indian customers. Quite a number of parallels with the way Europe has encouraged its own GNSS industry through the Galileo program.
With several avionics OEM manufacturers already using embedded NexNav TSO certified receivers in their systems using incorporating licensed designs, Accord looks well positioned to continue its airborne market growth. Accord’s success has so far been in general aviation, but it has wider aspirations, which include commercial transport aircraft (airline aircraft) — this is a segment which has the highest level of development/certification scrutiny and is therefore the most expensive segment in which to compete. Let’s hope Accord continues its growth and there is room in an expanding market for these relative newcomers.
The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) convention held August 12-15 in Washington, D.C., has been the global marketplace for all things unmanned for the last 39 years — and I was walking the floor trying to find who uses GNSS to do what.
The first thing that hit me is that this is one humongous show! More than 7,000 attendees and close to 600 exhibitors — that’s a lot of people to talk to and a lot of carpet to walk! All the big guys came — most with full-size UAVs on their stands. A good cross-section of companies making and using GNSS were here, too.
At the show, the big news was that FAA had granted two UAS a “Restricted Type Certification” — which most people assumed would allow somewhat unrestricted operation in civilian airspace. But alas, it seems at least for the Boeing/Insitu ScanEagle, that their intended operation — launching from ships off the coast of Alaska looking for whales and ice-flows for oil giant ConocoPhillips — is still quite restricted and appears to be very similar to what FAA has previously authorized under Certificates of Authorization (CoA). Nevertheless, for a vehicle that has already accumulated more than 730,000 reliable flight hours, it’s a step towards regular commercial operations.
The Insitu ScanEagle.
And how does the ScanEagle navigate? Its military cousin, which the U.S. Navy calls the RQ-21A “Integrator,” now uses an integrated autoflight system with a SAASM receiver that can achieve centimeter-level RTK performance. The Rockwell Athena integrated flight system now includes two integrated, next-gen SAASM receivers providing RTK performance via an external processor. RTK capability was evidently developed over a four- or five-month period, and now provides cm-level accuracy over a +10-Km range from the RTK base station.
The Athena 511 INS/GPS/ADAHRS/flight control system.
With the launch of the Rockwell Athena SAASM RTK solution, UAVs such as Insitu’s RQ-21A can now have centimeter-level GPS navigation accuracy and also benefit from the high-security features of a SAASM GPS receiver to enable autonomous capture, landing, and other operations. Rockwell also announced during the show that its GB-GRAM-M (M-code GPS receiver) was recently used in a test flight where live military code (M-code) signals were used for the first time to successfully navigate an aircraft. The flight, which took place at Holloman Air Force Base near Alamogordo, N.M., in June, successfully tested the Rockwell GB-GRAM-M integrated into the RQ-11B Raven unmanned aerial system.
The AeroVironment’s Puma AE received the same Restricted Type Certificate as the ScanEagle. The Puma is expected to support emergency response crews for oil spill monitoring and wildlife surveillance over the Beaufort Sea, but AeroVironment hasn’t yet announced a commercial partner it will work with on this. Both newly certified UAS — Insitu’s ScanEagle X200 and AeroVironment’s Puma AE — are “small” UAVs weighing less than 55 pounds. Each is about 4-½ feet long, with wingspans of 10 and 9 feet, respectively. The ScanEagle’s often operates off-shore and is recovered by a crane-supported vertical wire into which the UAV flies and is captured by hooks on the end of its wing — hence the need for RTK-level precision navigation. The Puma AE is man-portable and can be assembled quickly, hand-launched, and recovered on sea or land.
The Ashtech MB-One.
Meanwhile, on the show floor at AUVSI in D.C., we tracked down most of the manufacturers who make or incorporate GNSS into products aimed at the UAV/UAS segment:
Navcom provides service over its StarFire PPP (precise point positioning) network for a large number of UAV/UAS operators, including most U.S. military forces.
RT-Logic works on algorithms to improve anti-spoofing capabilities.
Topcon demonstrated its capabilities across a large number of vertical segments, including ground machine-control, survey, and construction, and is looking for UAV segment openings for its latest B110 compact dual-frequency OEM board.
ING Robotic Aviation is a typical GNSS user for auto take-off and landing for rotary and fixed-wing small UAVs — apparently integrating NovAtel RTK receivers.
Northrop-Grumman integrates mostly SAASM receivers into its LN-251 advanced airborne INS/GPS for mil-spec UAV applications.
SBG Systems is one of several companies offering compact MEMS and FOG INS with integrated GPS receivers — both commercial and mil-spec tactical versions.
The Trimble AP15.
Trimble introduced the Ashtech MB-One OEM receiver, which features an enhanced dual-core, dual-frequency, dual-antenna GNSS engine with 240 channels capable of tracking GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, BeiDou, and QZSS, with both SBAS and L-band corrections. The MB-One can work as two separate, independent receivers, both capable of RTK positioning or provide accurate heading and attitude — a significant capability needing pretty hefty processing! Trimble’s new AP15 embedded GNSS/INS was also announced at AUVSI. Within the last two months, Trimble has apparently combined the operations of their own OEM and Ashtech OEM groups under one management. So it has bags of technology and skills with which to move forward on the OEM receiver front — some powerhouse in the OEM marketplace!
L3 has now completed qualification and security certification for its in-house developed TruTrak Evolution Type II SAASM receiver. With a number of assessments and evaluations already under way, customers are now able to move onto production applications following achievement of these two key milestones.
Septentrio announced that Raven Aerostar has successfully integrated the GPS/GLONASS AsteRx2eH heading/positioning receiver into its TIF-25K unmanned aerostat system, minimizing receiver hardware.
Xsens, Gladiator, MicroStrain, Sparton and Vectornav all exhibited a range of integrated MEMS inertial/GNSS devices for UAVs — each year these packages appear to become smaller, lighter and more capable.
NovAtel has evolved its GAJT anti-jam CRPA system to split the receiver/processor electronics from the CRPA antenna. It now uses a four-element CRPA from Antcom, but says the system will work with any four-element CRPA array. A Marine GAJT-700MS is also in the works for release in late 2013. The OEM638 240-channel receiver “tracks all current and upcoming” GNSS constellations, and with 100-Hz RTK is ideally suited for all UAV navigation tasks. NovAtel has in the past been very successful providing commercial receivers for a large number of UAVs, and interest at their booth appeared to be high.
The NexNav/Accord GPS Sensor Unit.
NexNav/Accord is reportedly supplying its TSO C-145 qualified Max receiver to Free Flight for its airborne system, and also to several other avionics systems suppliers. As UAV/UAS move towards operations in civil airspace, FAA TSO-qualified receivers such as Max and its derivatives will likely become an important element in UAV airborne certified flight management systems. NexNav mini is apparently configured to provide ADS-B Out data, which could well form part of the future sense-and-avoid solution for UAV/UAS.
Geodetics has been busy since last year’s AUVSI convention working on relative navigation and establishing a solid distribution chain. Its GEO-ReINAV provides precise 1-2 cm relative position and relative orientation within 0.01-0.02 degrees between moving platforms — so ideal for UAV aerial refueling and precision landing.
Hemisphere GNSS is offering its OEM receiver line for UAV guidance systems, in particular its Vector H320 L1 GPS/GLONASS heading receiver. Hemisphere promises there will also be new product and company announcements at Intergeo in Germany and at ION GNSS in Nashville.
Xavier ORR demonstrates Spatial FOG.
Advanced Navigation from Sydney, Australia, has integrated the KVH 1750 FOG IMU with a Trimble BD90 L1/L2 GPS/GLONASS, Galileo E1/BeiDou L1 to come out with what they call a Spatial FOG. Coupling ultra-high accuracy KVH fiber optic gyroscopes, accelerometers, magnetometers, and a pressure sensor with an RTK GNSS receiver via a sophisticated fusion algorithm delivers highly accurate and reliable navigation and orientation.
Micropilot, based in Winnipeg, Canada, is one of a select few companies who have been very successful in supplying the UAV/UAS industry with a line of autopilots with embedded GPS. Micropilot currently uses an embedded u-blox chip and has one version that adds a NovAtel dual-frequency receiver for triple redundant installations. Its approach is to be very open with its UAV customers to allow them to customize control laws to suit individual vehicle dynamics. Most of its customers are supplying UAV/UAS for civil applications. Micropilot has apparently done a lot of work in developing a suite of verification tools that may assist future civil certification. For military applications, Micropilot mostly embeds Rockwell SAASM receivers.
Micropilot’s display.
Cloudcap continues to provide its Piccolo Autopilot line using both u-blox chips and a version with a Navisys GM-601 GPS smart antenna module, which actually uses a u-blox 6 chip and patch antenna.
Oxford Technical Solutions brought its RT3000 and RT2000 inertial/GPS measurement units to AUVSI, along with a new mini MEMS version designed for geolocation post processing; a real-time version should be available next year.
So, once again AUVSI has been one heck of a show, with more to see and learn than the available time seemed to allow. And for those exhibitors who I wasn’t able to include, I can only beg for forgiveness — space and time are limited. There were lots of vehicles and lots of vendors supplying the UAV/UAS industry represented at AUVSI, particularly GNSS and GNSS/INS integrated products for navigation, guidance, flight control, surveying and platform stabilization.
Anti-drone strike protesters outside the AUVSI Conference.
And the majority of exhibitors are thinking more of the commercial market as their military business continues to contract — which may please the group who showed up at the doors of the D.C. Convention Center deploring the potential collateral damage that UAVs are purportedly creating in the U.S. war on terrorism.
And for this UAV/UAS commercial market segment, the opportunities seem to be growing, along with the expectation that FAA will begin to move faster to enable many more commercial applications in the near future.
The Navy’s Communications and GPS Navigation Program Office (PMW/A 170) mounted a Small Antenna System on an Aerostar unmanned aircraft then placed it in a room lined with signal-absorbent material, where it was subjected to GPS jamming signals at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. Part of an initiative to protect GPS technologies on small unmanned aerial vehicles, the Navy conducted the tests in July to demonstrate how miniaturized GPS protection devices can prevent interruption of the mission-critical global positioning data. (U.S. Navy photo)
Part of an initiative to protect GPS technologies on small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), the Navy recently conducted tests to demonstrate how miniaturized GPS protection devices can prevent interruption of this mission-critical global positioning data.
From July 10 to 24, the Communications and GPS Navigation Program Office, headquartered in San Diego, mounted a Small Antenna System (SAS) on an Aerostar unmanned aircraft, then placed the small UAV in a room lined with signal-absorbent material at the FARM (Facilities for Antenna and RCS Measurements), where it was subjected to GPS jamming signals.
Equipped with model jammers, the FARM facility was used as a stage for the “enemy” to jam the GPS signal and try to knock the UAV off course, said Eric Stevens, the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Communications and Navigation lead for PMW/A-170, which supplied the antenna system. Knocked off course, the UAV would not be able to relay critical intelligence back to the ground control station — disrupting communications among U.S. and allied forces’ ships, aircraft and submarines. In a worst-case scenario, GPS jamming could even cause UAVs to crash.
“If an enemy is trying to jam, or interfere, with the GPS frequency, this antenna allows us to be able to track and acquire the true GPS satellites even in the midst of this jamming and interference,” Stevens said. “What we are doing is demonstrating and quantifying the value of this antenna on small UAVs.”
Personnel involved in the testing were optimistic about the results.
“We are hoping to gain some ground and show there are smaller GPS protection solutions out there,” said Michelle Jackson, an electronics engineer with experience in testing SAS systems on other platforms.
Equipped with the SAS, the Aerostar will be also used to support a U.S. Army pre-deployment war-game scenario conducted at Fort Polk, La., in August, said Donn Rushing, the project lead for MUDO. Rushing participated in the Fort Polk exercises last year and said the addition of the GPS anti-jamming antenna will give the “good guys” an edge this year.
“This new anti-jam system decreases the footprint normally required of such a system, which is now ideal for UAV incorporation and service,” Rushing said. “What makes us smarter is knowing our enemies are smart and that we have to stay one step ahead of them. The SAS development is the latest GPS anti-jam capability to aid the war fighter in combating the bad guys.”
microdrones, a German manufacturer of light-weight Vertical Take Off and Landing Vehicles (VTOLs), has successfully demonstrated a high-precision aerial journey over the Alps from Switzerland towards Italy with its 5-kg md4-1000 quadrocopter microdrone. Precise GPS coordinates and elevation, crucial for navigating obstacles and completing the flight in punishing weather conditions, was provided by an onboard u-blox GPS satellite receiver module.
Equipped with a high-resolution video camera, the autonomous microdrone completed 18 pre-programmed flight segments, mapping designated landmarks along the way. Here is a video showing it in flight.
“This successful journey of our microdrone demonstrates the robustness, reliability, and versatility of our autonomous drone technology which is being increasingly used for aerial mapping, surveying, search and rescue, security, utilities inspection, and aerial photography,” said Sven Juerss, microdrones CEO. “The md4-1000 was faced with intense wind and temperature fluctuations during its flight. It also had to navigate around power lines and a cable car during its more than 12 kilometer trip, which included a 1,600-meter change in altitude. This autonomous flight would not have been possible without the robust, ultra-precise, real-time satellite positioning technology from u-blox.”
“Fully automated devices are increasingly used to do tasks that are too costly and dangerous for human operators,” said Herbert Blaser, VP Business Marketing at u-blox. “The microdrone is a perfect example of a cost-effective, versatile, location-aware machine that allows people to collect important information at high altitudes from a safe, ground-based control center. This is an application that exploits all the features of our satellite navigation modules; fast, accurate-fix, low-power consumption and reliable operation in extreme environmental conditions.”
Several sponsor companies took part in the preparation and realization of this remarkable endurance test: Daimler AG made four Mercedes-Benz AMG support vehicles available, Sony Germany, Carl Zeiss AG and GPS/GNSS and wireless hardware and software developer u-blox contributed their audio, video and satellite navigation technologies to the project.
microdrone’s md4-1000 is able to fly autonomously for up to 88 minutes, and carry a payload of up to 1.2 kg.
