Planning for RPAS Operations Tom Wade, Facility Manager, University of Edinburgh Image courtesy of Simon Gibson-Poole (UoE/SRUC) at
Introduction Terminology Strengths and Limitations is this the tool for the job? Checking the Regulations Platform and Sensor Selection and Integration Planning Field Operations Safety Management at
Terminology... Drones, UAVs, RPAS... at
More Formal Terminology... Unmanned Aircraft (UA): ANY unmanned aircraft - Includes unguided and fully autonomous aircraft Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA): Unmanned aircraft which can be controlled remotely Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) (Unmanned Aircraft System, UAS, UK CAA): at
UK Weight Classifications (UK CAA CAP722) UAS (> 150 kg) European airworthiness requirements Limited access to airspace Light UAS (> 20 kg, <= 150kg) National airworthiness (permits) Operational limitations (line of sight etc) as per small UAS Small UAS (<= 20kg) Generally NO airworthiness oversight No pilot qualifications (non-commercial) Low cost Operational limitations DO apply (e.g. line of sight, altitude etc) at
RPA Systems (RPAS)/ UAS: Key Components Supporting Ground Measurements e.g. ground control points (GCPs) Airborne Component (RPA) Command & Control Link(s) (C2) Ground Control Station (GCS) (Ground Station (GS); Remote Pilot Station etc) The Humany Bit at
RPAS: Strengths & Limitations...Is this really the right tool for the job? at
RPAS are great because... Portability Portable Repeatability Low cost at small spatial scales Ultra-high resolution Repeatable Accessibility Hover and point (multi-rotors) Dull, Dirty and Dangerous New technology > Innovation Fearless at
But on the other hand... Very limited spatial coverage Inefficient for covering large areas Can be surprisingly time consuming (setup, integration & training) Very limited payload > limits sensor capability Access to power for batteries etc. No airworthiness standards risk of component failure ~ 4 Ha @ High res... 2 flights: A days work for 2 people RPAS sensor Aircraft sensor Inexperience, procedural & human errors lead to accidents And regulatory limitations... at
Regulatory Limitations (UK): Visual Line of Sight Rules (max 500m horizontal, 400ft vertical) Separation Rules (50 m person, vehicle, vessel or structure; 150 m from large groups or built up area) Airspace Restrictions (Airports, controlled airspace, restricted, danger and prohibited area) Commercial Ops and Urban Areas need Qualifications & Approvals Subject to change, and vary by country! Legal responsibility lies with the person operating the aircraft Ref CAA drone code at
On balance... RPAS fill a certain niche very well indeed Proving extremely popular for supporting fieldwork across many disciplines There remain huge opportunities for innovation and novel science...but Subject to very significant limitations...in particular with respect to payload, spatial scale and risk of accident Compliment rather than replace conventional airborne platforms at
Checking the Regulations at
Checking the Regulations Small RPAS operations are regulated at the NATIONAL level National rules DO vary considerably and can be very restrictive Approvals for foreign scientific operators may be complex and time consuming Finding information and contacts can be tricky Allow plenty of time (several months) Don t assume that you will be allowed to do whatever you want! at
Regulatory Information Sources Search for your country CAA or civil aviation authority and drone / UAS / RPAS Common areas of regulation include: Visual line of sight (range, height) Separation from people and property Operations in controlled airspace / near airports Permissions for commercial (and possibly scientific) work Permissions for foreign operators For airspace information / restrictions: Each country produces an Aeronautical Information Package (AIP) Aeronautical charts may be available electronically / on paper copy Try SkyDemon flight planning package at
Platforms & Sensors at
The Main Considerations... Platform Payload vs Sensor Specs (don t forget mounting / gimbals etc.) Endurance keep in mind the effect of sensor weight Area to be covered Ability to hover / fly slowly Operating area: Size, Shape, Surface, Slope, Surrounds Gimbal support & sensor triggering / logging Mechanical, electrical and signal interfaces Development time / resources available at
Multi-rotor Can operate virtually anywhere Slow or hovering flight: Low level imaging Extreme resolution and/or overlap Long integration times Easy to operate DJI M600 Fixed Wing Longer endurance Fewer moving parts Energy efficient Need open space to operate Move fast, so: Higher flight level reqd. to provide image overlap Hence lower resolution Bormatec Explorer 45 min (0 kg) >> 15 min (~9kg) ~1hr ~1.5 kg at
Sensors Some quick examples of optical sensors at
Simple RGB Cameras Tend to be compact or compact system cameras Built in cameras (e.g. Phantom 4) increasingly high quality Cheap, simple but very effective for orthomapping and Structure From Motion Boghall Farm Orthomosaiic, (S. Gibson-Poole) at Herschel island SfM product (low res) (A. Cunliffe)
Modified Cameras One unmodified (RGB), one modified to collect NIR. E.g. Snow depth mapping for avalanche forecasting, Glenshee, 2017 (A. Hawkes, UG Dissertation) RGB Snow-free RGB Snow NIR Snow at
Multispectral Imaging SAL Engineering Maia Multispectral Camera 8 channels VNIR RGB Separate Irradiance module Integrated RTK GPS support ~ 15-20K Parrot Sequoia Multispectral Camera 4 channel VNIR RGB ~ 3.5K at
Hyperspectral Imaging E.g. Headwall Photonics Micro-Hyperspec E-Series VNIR 400-1000 nm 369 spectral bands 1600 spatial pixels 1.1 kg (no lens) M-Series SWIR 900-2500 nm 166 spectral bands 384 spatial pixels 2 kg (no lens) at Also: IMU, Gimbal... Overall a large and expensive system
Platform & Sensors Summary Many options out there Need to clearly define science requirements including operating area characteristics, sensor specifications and local regulations (e.g. weight limits) Off-the-shelf market is now very broad and increasingly adaptable; but treat manufacturer data cautiously Self-build is an option as long as the skills and time are available. Don t underestimate the work involved in platform and sensor development and integration! at
Planning Field Operations Supporting Ground Measurements (control points etc.) Airborne Component Command & Control Link(s) Ground Control Station at
GCS Hardware: R/C controller (Tx) Laptop/tablet interface communicating with aircraft and / or sensors Stand/mount options Command & Control Link Components GCS Software: Real-time display Uplink for commands, missions etc Mission planning Setup & configuration at
GCS Planning Considerations: Sophistication vs Simplicity Ease of operation vs Portability... Carrying systems Range of communications; local RF regs Redundancy and spares Complexity and crew training Testing and refining procedures and equipment at
Supporting Ground Measurements at
You may need to plan for: Ground Control Points Pre / Post -flight spectral calibration In-flight spectral calibration targets Atmospheric optical measurements Can have a major impact on logistics, portability and crew requirements Lack of people causes stress and rush >>> Accidents at
Ground Control Points (GCPs) Geo-rectification of SfM and mapping products With DGPS, points can be surveyed to ~ 2 cm accuracy or better General advice is ~ 10+ GCPs per scene Check size and visibility in all bands TEST! at
GCP issues: Access to survey area maybe be impossible or hazardous GCP setup and survey is ALWAYS very time consuming Can be bulky and heavy. Onboard Alternatives? RTK/PPK solutions compare favourably to GCPs in open sky environments https://pix4d.com/rtk-ppk-drones-gcp-comparison/ RTK requires an additional communication link (which can fail). PPK does not. at
Safety Management What could possibly go wrong? at
1. Rotating Blades 2. High Energy Impact (i.e. crash) 3. LiPo Battery Fire / Explosion 4. Mid-Air Collision at
What are the consequences? Potentially fatal Prosecution Loss of aircraft and/or sensor...failure of project Safety and Accident Prevention should be everybody s top priority at
Safety Management Risk Assessment including: - RPAS & site specific risks - Aeronautical hazards, airspace etc - Notification / permission requirements May be additional to normal H&S procedures Operating Procedures & Checklists - Consider an Operations Manual Incident Reporting & Feedback Crew Training and Currency at
Human Error in RPAS Accidents Common contributing factors often include: Battery exhaustion Unexpected engagement of failsafe modes Lack of recognition Disorientation Fighting autopilot >>>>>> crash Lack of understanding of effects of weight / wind on endurance Training, experience, procedures Stress >>> mistakes, poor decisions Training, experience, crew resources & teamwork at Training, procedures Training
Planning Perspective Allow time and resources to : Establish and test procedures and checklists Develop appropriate risk assessment methods Provide training and practical experience prior to deployment Ensure appropriate crew levels in the field at
Questions / Comments? tom.wade@ed.ac.uk Image courtesy of Simon Gibson-Poole (UoE/SRUC) at