A Brave New Drone World

The Drone Battle League

The fairly recent advent of drones has evolved into many varied applications, from science and medicine, to mapping and agriculture, various commercial to a variety of simple recreational applications; camera/cinematography, exploration, and racing. All provide an enjoyable pastime and unparalleled entertainment. In addition to these applications, I propose yet another in the evolution of drone applications and entertainment – one that will challenge our skills, and take our aircraft (and the associated technology) to the next level.

This application can not only be viewed by participants and local event audiences, but easily televised or streamed on the Internet. I propose formation of two leagues, both amateur and professional, and of a scheduled series of games and playoffs, much like traditional, legacy sports such as football and baseball. These playoffs would be local, regional national, and international.

In this document, I propose the formation of a Drone Battle League (DBL). While traditional drone racing may challenge the skills of the best pilot, the DBL proposes that drone battle racing will require even more skill, and add additional competitive components in the areas of strategy, air-frame design, and performance technology.

This document provides a notional organization and hierarchy, to be defined more fully upon review by the racing committee and other stakeholders.

Drone Battle Racing will be only one sub-class among three proposed categories: piloted, autonomous, and mixed categories

1.0 Competition Categories

Piloted Category aircraft (or fleets/swarms thereof) would be controlled by a human or humans, either from individual or multiple RPV/FPV, or from an integrated console at the Ground-Control Station (GCS).

2. Autonomous Category would be flown by auto-pilot programs in the flight control, either through Artificial Intelligence (AI), predictive flight algorithms in traditional software, or a combination thereof

3. Mixed Category:would be between piloted and autonomous teams, and between mixed teams of piloted/autonomous fleets.

This class could eventually be expected to be deleted, as AI technology advances and experience ‘learns’ to fly better than humans ever could, on the same platform.

1.1 Competition Sub-Categories

Due to the varied nature of technical and financial resources between competitor categories, basic competition will be divided into various competition sub-categories, based on the needs, resources, and end goals of various competitors. The basic sub-categories are defined below:

Military
Law Enforcement
University/Research Centers
Manufacturers
Recreational/Professional
Recreational/Amateur
Mixed/Open

2.0 Combatant Types

For all categories and sub categories, three general types of combatants or teams are defined:

Individually or team-piloted/controlled UAV (single or multiple aircraft in coordinated teams)
Multiple Aircraft, Single Pilot (MASP) ‘swarms’ (or multiple MASP)
Combination

3.0 Battle Classes and Events

Within each sub-category, the following classes (and associated events) are proposed:

3.1 Racing Battle Class

This class operates in a similar manner to traditional drone/UAV racing, with the addition of intentional interference between competitors. Classes are defined as:

Roller Derby Using basic land-based roller derby rules
Battle Racing
Dogfight Racing (1 on 1)
Cage matches
Demolition Derby

In the battle mode, racers will be allowed to use only the flight, force, and position of their aircraft to eliminate other competitors. No weapons will be allowed on aircraft or on the ground.

3.2 Strategic Battle Class

This class is based not on a race competition or speed exhibition, but on team play and goal-based strategies. Classical ‘games’ will be defined as events, with rules and games similar to those commonly employed in paintball games. Suggested events are:

Capture the Flag
Elimination
Protect and Defend

4.0 Aircraft Categories

Within each class, there are two categories of aircraft; commercial off the shelf (COTS) including kits and amateur/home-built. Each will be required to meet basic class criteria. Each will compete separately (except for Open Class, where all types of aircraft and operators are allowed).

Winners in each category will compete for a final class championship

4.1 Autonomous Aircraft Criteria

Autonomous aircraft will use a standardized ‘maneuver library’, consisting of similar maneuvers (with specific implementation criteria undefined). An additional ‘open’ category would allow any combination of maneuvers the team wishes to equip their aircraft with.

Sub-classes within the autonomous category would conceivably be delineated as follows:

Software-program aircraft
AI-based aircraft
Open (Mixed) Class

5.0 Event Areas

5.1 Strategic Battle Class

Strategic Battle Class (SBC) competition areas will be initially defined as as closed area, fenced on the sides and top. Dimensions can vary, but a typical competition area would be defined as:

60 feet by two hundred feet, within a 100 yard by 30 yard field

Obstacles and protective areas (bases) would be set up in various configurations, depending on the competition type.

5.2 Racing Battle Class

Racing Battle class would use a typical drone racing track configuration, as depicted below;

Track modifications would depend on the specific type of racing competition to be held.

The tables below define racing gates, standoff fencing, and other safety parameters. Note they are generally adopted from existing (non-battle) racing leagues.

PARAMETER	GENERAL	CAGE	OTHER
*Standoff Distance*	30 ft. (9.1 m)	10 ft
*Net Spectator Standoff*	3 ft. (0.9 m)	3 ft
*Netting Height*	30 ft. (9.1 m)	20 ft
*Netting Weave*	1 ¾ in. (45 mm)	TBD
*Flight Ceiling*	40’ (12 m)	20 ft

Drone Battle League, Safety Net Criteria

CLASS	GATE AREA	GATE (IN)	GATE (MM)	MATERIAL
*Tiny Whoop*	361 sq .in.	(19” x 19”)	(483mm x 483mm)	TBD
*Micro*	6.25 sq. ft.	(30” x 30”)	(762mm x762 mm)	TBD
3S	25 sq. ft.	(5’ x 5’)	(1.52m x 1.52m)	PVC Mesh
4S	25 sq. ft.	(5’ x 5’)	(1.52m x 1.52m)	PVC Mesh
*Open*	25 sq. ft.	(5’ x 5’)	(1.52m x 1.52m)	PVC Mesh
*Mega*	144 sq. ft.	(12’ x12’)	(3.66m x 3.66 m)	PVC Mesh

Drone Battle League, Racing Gate Criteria

6.0 UAV Classes

Proposed classes follow generic Drone Racing League classes, and are defined below

CLASS	Max Frame Size	Propeller Size	Weight	Battery	vTX Power	MOTOR
*Tiny Whoop*	(150mm)	31mm (1.22”)	25g (0.88 oz)	1 cell LiPo	250 mW	Brushed 6mm
*Micro*	(250mm)	66mm (2.59”)	150g (5.29 oz)	2 cell LiPo	250 mW	Brush or B’less
3S	305mm (12”)	152mm (6”)	800g (28.21oz)	3 cell LiPo	250 mW	Any
4S	305mm (12”)	152mm (6”)	800g (28.21oz)	4 cell LiPo	250 mW	Any
*Open*	305mm (12”)	No limit*	800g (28.21oz)	No limit	250 mW	Any
Mega**	800-1050mm (31.49-41.33”)	No limit	TBD	No limit	250 mW (0.25W)	No limit

Drone Battle League, Aircraft Class Criteria

6.1 Competitor Aircraft Criteria

Payload modifications will not allow weaponized systems or projectile-launching devices. A list of allowed payload types will be developed on further study, but initially include:

Lighting Systems
Camera and sensor systems
FPV associated hardware and systems

All airframe modifications that stay within the class criteria (and do not include weaponized capabilities) are allowed. Open class accepts all types of airframe modifications and payload weights (providing they meet basic criteria).

Some event types will allow counter-drone or electronic counter-measures to be employed. The majority of events will exclude these applications.

6.2 Competitor Identification and Tracking

Competitors will be assigned RFID tags, which will be affixed to each competing aircraft. These tags will track competitor location and speed, and be used to verify arrival at and departure from checkpoints/waypoints

6.3 Competitor Operations

Competitors will be posted in either a common pilot/team area or two team areas, where they will place their equipment and support material. Within this area, no spectators will be allowed.

The competitor area will be equipped with (at minimum) a First Aid kit, sand, salt water and chemical fire extinguishers appropriate to LiPo batteries.

Access to the competitor will be verified by possession of official competitor pass/ID

6.4 Competitor Team Composition

A notional composition of a competitor team would include the following personnel:

Pilots Remote pilots will be primary operators of the aircraft in competition. No league or association membership is required (although hosting leagues and associations may offer reduced-rate entry fees for their members). No special certifications are required. If flying special aircraft, an FAA Certificate of Authorization may be required (by the FAA)

ECM Systems Operators (as applicable) ECM systems operators (ESO) will operate electronic (and other) counter-measures, for events where this capability is allowed. Their command log will be made available to event referees and judges, on request.

Visual Observers Visual observers will be in constant visual line of sight (VLOS) with their team members’ aircraft, inasmuch as it is possible during the course of events. They will be within direct speech range or remote communications range, and maintain constant communications capability with their associated pilots.

Aircraft Repair Each team can designate up to two people for aircraft repair and maintenance (including communications systems). These personnel will be equipped with whatever maintenance and repair equipment and parts they deem necessary

Air Defense Team Members (on-field for some events, and equipped with appropriate safety equipment) will be allowed for some events. Air defense weapons will be limited to non-lethal weapons, such as discs (hand-thrown) or paintball guns (in some categories), and non-projectile (nets, counter-drone ‘e-guns’, etc.) in others

7.0 Judging and Refereeing

The events will be refereed by officials (typically provided by the hosting league or chapter). There will be a varying number of officials, depending on events. Officiating (and the final word in contentions) will be either by a single judge, or for larger or ‘playoff’ events, a panel of three judges.

Aircraft and controller inspections will be performed upon entry, and immediately before event start time, to ensure airworthiness and compliance with applicable criteria.

Referees will monitor not only operations on the field, but also ground-control operations in the player/team areas.

8.0 Associated Event Staff

Additional event support staff will include, but not be limited to:

Timer/scorekeeper Provides timing and general score-keeping and statistics collection

Aircraft Inspectors Provide airworthiness and class-compliance inspections

Fire Marshall Ensures all potential fire hazards and vulnerable systems will be inspected before operations, and monitored during operations. Note non-EMS personnel may perform these functions, as guided by the local fire department representative (should they choose to provide one).

Police Marshall Ensures basic local and federal laws, rules, and regulations are followed by competitors and spectators alike. Coordinates with security personnel (as utilized) to ensure no civil ordinances are violated. Note non-police personnel may be designated for performance of such functions, to be overseen by the local police department representative (should they choose to provide one).

Volunteer Medical Staff Unpaid, qualified personnel should be on hand at each event. At a minimum, they should be trained and certified (by American Red Cross or other similar organization, for example) in A) Basic First Aid B) CPR C) treatment of burns. These personnel would nominally maintain communications with local EMS services, in the event of a medical emergency requiring outside assistance.

9.0 Media Operations

Each event area will have a space dedicated to media and news personnel.

Media personnel will be assigned special passes prior to each event

Media cameras will be allowed on the event field (or near the periphery)

Media displays will be allowed in or near the spectator area

All media personnel would be selected from official or (at minimum) active news and media organizations (including association or organizational media/PR personnel).

The Drone Battle League (and hosting organizations) would retain all rights to the videos and media derived from each event, and negotiate with news media for publication or broadcast, as require.

10.0 Spectator Considerations and Management

Spectators will be confined to designated viewing areas. Each area will have a ‘standoff’ from safety fencing and pilot/judging areas.

Spectator safety measures will be implemented by use of safety netting around and above the competition areas, and restriction to protected spectator areas. Qualified medical personnel should be made available, not only to competitors and team members, but to event staff and the general public, in case of emergencies.

Spectator areas will be within view of monitor screens for FPV views, overall field views, etc. Competitors are encouraged to use low-latency digital FPV systems, in order to provide better display of ongoing events to referees, spectators, and race team members alike.

11.0 Legal Considerations and Waiver of Liability

The event attendees (team members, event staff, media, and the general public would conceivably grant permission (by attendance or specific waiver) for automatic release of liability, much as is implemented in ski races, ski areas, and other pastimes where the possibility of injury is inherent in the sport (or in either event, considered possible or likely).

Basic operational guidelines shall be reviewed by qualified legal personnel, in order to ensure enforceability and legality, as applicable

12.0 Summary and Conclusions

This document provides a notional, ‘straw man’ concept for submission to existing racing associations, universities, and other potential stakeholders and/or participants. It will be modified based on feedback, and development of the league in scope and events.

The existence of (and initiation of) a Drone Battle League will help advance the hobby, sport, and technology of UAS/UAV/drone operations, by providing an arena for pilots to test their skills and develop techniques and strategies, and by providing impetus for continued technical and technology advancement in the applications and operations of UAS/UAV/drones.

As such, grant and support funding from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and other applicable organizations, agencies, and entities will be encouraged and pursued.

For more information on the Drone Battle League, or to become a member or help develop specifications and criteria, please contact:

Mark Mullen oneyoga@live.com (use Drone Battle League in the subject header)

Stealing Drones with Remote ID and Tracking

“Lookee there, Burt…that’s an Inspire drone. That thing must cost about 20,000 dollars.”

“Dang, Rex, let’s go get it.”

“Why, how we gonna do that, Burt?”

“Dang, Rex, don’t you know anything? Using this cool new program they made, I can just point my phone at it like this…and presto! There’s the location of the guy flying it. We’ll just go there and wait ’til he lands.”

It may sound like a bad dream or a bad movie plot. But it is real. Modern wifi capabilities allow non-fliers to track not only your drone’s location…but your own location. It’s as easy as pie.

Now, I can imagine how thieves might use this feature to steal drones…how much easier could it get for them? I can imagine anti-drone reactionaries and Luddites using this feature to come and harass drone pilots. What I can’t imagine is anyone using this feature for positive results.

Would they use my broadcast location to come compliment me on my flying abilities? Hardly. Maybe they would use the location to prevent a crime in progress. Unlikely. By the time the snooper (or cop) gets there, the crooks will most likely be gone and if not…do you think crooks will willingly give up their plans (or drones) just because someone located them and came there to say ‘stop’? Not a chance.

Fact is, I can imagine few positive benefits to such a location broadcast, and a plethora of negative consequences. Call me a storm-crow, but that’s how I see it.

For one thing, I can maybe see someone tracking my drone. Tracking me…well, that is another issue entirely. That is what we call ‘mass surveillance’. It is illegal. In my own personal case, it is called individual surveillance, and that is both illegal and immoral. Putting my life and safety at risk in such a manner is just not okay. Now, I can see identifying my drone, if I am doing something illegal with it. I can see filming it for evidence. I can even see obtaining a registration number, through which legitimate authorities (such as the police or FBI) can then locate me. That makes sense.

But giving my location to just anyone? That is not only illegal and not cool, it is just plain crazy.

Now, I get that DJI is based in Communist China, where they aren’t so touchy about monitoring the populace. We’ve all seen the facial recognition videos from there. We’ve all heard about how Uighurs are facially mapped (as anyone who gets a drivers license there is) and tracked. I’m not trying to tell them how to run their country. I am trying to tell them how not to run mine, though.

In their social environment, it maybe makes sense (or at least is not considered reprehensible) to do such things. But here in the Land of the Free….that just ain’t cutting it. I fully support a digital license plate for UAS…commercial UAS. I even understand why the government might want to remotely identify and track recreational, civilian drones. But I will never understand why anyone needs to (or is entitled to) my location when I am flying a drone.

That does not increase safety (just the opposite, in fact). It does not increase accountability, or prevent accidents. All it does is allow authorities to (after the fact) come and get the ‘bad guys’.

The FAA goes on and on about how the proposed Remote ID and Tracking rules would increase NAS (National Air Space) safety. Hey, it doesn’t take an Einstein to know that nothing about tracking increases safety. Safety is preventative, not reactive. And no matter how sophisticated remote tracking might be, it will not prevent accidents. That influence (and those resultant efforts) would be better aimed at aircraft collision-detection and avoidance technologies, if safety was the primary goal.

Frankly, in the kind of society we live in today, with numerous documented instances of police brutality and misuse of power, maybe it is not a bad idea to have relatively free drones flying around, unidentified. Misuses of power occur most often in secret, in a vacuum of oversight. Allowing drones the chance to observe and record official police and military actions may not be as bad a thing as everyone claims it is.

Now, I know I am not making any friends in the law enforcement community by taking this kind of stance. Still, I think that there is little reason to track drones with a maximum flight time of less than a half hour, and maximum payload capability of less than a kilogram (in most cases). They aren’t going to be the ones we need to watch out for, the ones we need to track. The ones who might need tracking and identification are manned aircraft, with much longer flight times (and ranges), and exponentially larger payloads.

Yet the FAA is silent on this. They require ADS-B (a type of Remote ID and tracking for manned aircraft) only in heavily congested areas and around airports and similar sensitive areas. That makes perfect sense. If they would use the same criteria for drones, I wouldn’t have any problem with that. Yet the FAA and their cohorts in the commercial/intelligence world want to implement remote ID and Tracking (they always leave out the tracking part) in all areas, rural and urban, dense or sparse population. Yes, they want this feature for areas with no delivery services and little or no flight paths. Yet they dare not try to implement such a plan for manned aviation.

I say what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Be fair. If we are going to track all UAS, then track all aircraft. If we are going to broadcast Personally Identifiable Information (PII) for UAS pilots, then do it for all pilots. Laws that exclude some or target only portions of the population are not just laws.

Remote ID techniques and applications may be good or bad, efficient or inefficient, but they should be FAIR…equally imposed and equally burdensome (or easy) for all involved.

When I started flying drones, I didn’t want to become an activist. I didn’t want to fly in places where people might be bothered. I certainly didn’t want to fly in places or manners that would interfere with manned aircraft (or any other aircraft), law enforcement, or national security.

I love my country, and would do nothing to harm it. I respect society and my fellow citizens, and would do nothing to harm them or infringe on their rights, security, or privacy. And I expect the same consideration to be given to me.

Heck, I just wanted to fly my drone, maybe record some epic motorcycle rides or snowboarding descents. I definitely didn’t want to get embroiled in a controversy, or in NPRMs and responses. I wanted to spend my time in flying, not writing about it, or complaining about ill-begotten rules and unfair regulations.

I don’t care if Amazon makes another fortune delivering nonsense to consumers. I don’t begrudge the DHS of their desire to see and control almost everything that happens in this country. I just want to fly.

Which is exactly what these rules intend (either directly, or through effect) to stop. I want to fly free (or relatively free, as free as I can while flying ‘safe’). I want everyone else to be able to do so as well. I do NOT want people imposing their will or more regulations on me. I most certainly do not want random citizens given my location when I am flying. To some vigilantes, this is an invitation. To crooks, it is an opportunity. To authorities, it is a blank check on my civil rights.

None of that is cool. Surely, we have better decision-making ability and technology than that. Surely we can devise better methods that are just as effective and less intrusive. We have the technology.

So let’s use it. Thoughtfully. Efficiently. With respect and consideration for the rights of others.

If as much effort went into developing a UAS-based airborne collision and avoidance technology as has gone into developing a remote ID and tracking capability, we would have taken a step towards safety, instead of a step towards totalitarianism. For avoidance of crashes is safety – proactive and efficient. Identifying offenders is not helpful in regards to safety, and is merely reactive. That just doesn’t make sense.

So if you are going to make rules that would broadcast my location to thieves, vigilantes, anti-drone Luddites and troublemakers, then I can hardly be expected to ‘get with the program’ and support that type of nonsense.

But if you are going to implement (and propose) efficient, safety-based solutions that treat all users of the NAS equally, then how could I not get behind such a program?

It’s simple common sense. Which seems to be less simple and less common as time goes by.

But back to the stealing part. Not only can thieves use my location to steal my drone, they can use my PII information to hack my credit card information, and maybe find my home address and other information I do not share with the public. There is no telling what goes through the minds of thieves, but this ‘opportunity’ has surely got those minds spinning with plots and plans.

All thieves do not wear masks and look like thieves. Corporations which charge me to track my drone and I, who might sell this information to other marketing firms, are just as criminal as a guy with a gun and larceny in his heart. Plans which place a cost burden on citizens while opening the door to huge profits for multinational corporations is thievery on a grand scale.

So let’s stop this thievery. Let’s hope the FAA gets some of the decision-making ability they espouse for airmen. Let’s unite and tell them what we think before it is too late.

POV Flying: FPV, RPV, and More…

Flying R/C (Radio Controlled) aircraft used to mean one POV (Point of View) only was possible…Third Person View (TPV or 3PV). You stood there with your remote controller in your hands and ‘flew’ the aircraft you saw in the distance. That was the only way. Flying (by radio-control) in the ‘bad ole days’ used to mean LOS (Line of Sight) flying only.

These days, old-fashioned TPV/3PV flying is only used by camera-less aircraft; kids’ toys and legacy ‘model aircraft’. Pretty much everything else has a more modern way to fly, using a better POV…

You guessed it…RPV. Remote Point of View (RPV) defines flying by a point of view that is ‘remote’ from the pilot – the POV from on the drone. RPV gives the Remote Pilot (RP) a remote view…a ‘bird’s eye view’ (or more accurately, a drone’s eye view). This view is a Virtual First-Person View (VFPV).

VFPV isn’t ‘real’ FPV. Your ‘real’ FPV (First-Person View) is the view you see naturally, without any aids or technology. It might be called your CFPV (Corporeal FPV, one based in and from your body). You may be flying by RPV, and maybe thinking how lifelike it is, how it’s almost like a real FPV…but if you wanted, you could take off the goggles and return to your ‘normal’ POV.

A POV you can’t change from, one that is the default way you perceive the world (your CFPV) can be called your True FPV (TFPV). In our cases (having bodies), TFPV and CFPV are the same thing. They are different from RPV and VFPV.

VFPV is the type of RPV used in flying drones. For short, it is called FPV. But if there is a ‘first-person’ view, then what about the other person views? The dictionary defines some of the differences, but to make it simple:

-First person is your point of view (you would say ‘I am flying’)

-Second person is how you see another (you would say to them ‘You are flying)

-Third person is how you see a remote other (it is flying)

In drone-flying terms,

First Person View FPV Pilot in airplane

Second Person SPV Synchronized goggles (buddy goggles)

Third Person TPV/3PV Visual LOS flying

Remote Person RPV Flying a VFPV/FPV aircraft

In-body view CPV/TPV Being a Visual Observer (VO)

Virtual FPV (VFPV) provides a view from the drone that is almost like real. This is because it is seen from goggles, and the view presented is virtually the only thing the RP sees. Another type of RPV flying is when the video display from the drone is displayed on a remote controller screen (or a smart-phone attached to a remote controller).

This type of view (compared to VFPV) might be termed AFPV (Almost FPV). It also provides a good example of POV differences…when you are looking at that screen, you get a kind-of FPV (AFPV). But at any time you can look away from the screen and return to your ‘normal’ FPV…your TFPV/CFPV.

In the end, no matter what I or Webster’s Dictionary might say, people are gonna call flying by a camera mounted in the drone FPV flying. They will probably keep calling TPV/3PV flying LOS flying. When their buddy watches them fly through another pair of goggles, no one will say they are watching SPV/2PV.

I know that’s a lot of terms to keep straight, but don’t get confused by the non-flying definitions:

Wikipedia defines a Neutral POV (NPOV) as an objective, scientific POV

Psychology defines POV as Predicted Outcome Value

The Urban Dictionary defines FPV as Ford Performance Vehicle

An FPV-racing T-shirt defines FPV as ‘the ability of a user of some technology to see from a particular visual perspective other than one’s actual location, such as the environment of a drone.’

Drone parts makers define an FPV vTX (video transmitter) as one with zero latency (or at least less than ten milliseconds)

Some camera manufacturers (like Run Cam) define FPV cameras by their specifications and capabilities.*

Well, we must be getting ‘techno’, since we have a head full of acronyms now. And who’d have ever thought drones could help teach us POV distinctions and grammar subtleties? For that matter, who’d have thought drones would teach us aeronautics, engineering, electronics, flight operations, computer programming, and cinematography?

Whatever you call it, it’s all FPV to me. Or RPV. Whatever.

In the end, RPV is the closest we’ve ever come to a true FPV from an experience we are not having (and viewing) directly. That Almost Bird’s Eye View (ABEV, LOL) is good enough for me.

So let’s go fly and check out some of those POVs. Whether I am flying 3PV or VFPV, or even 2PV/SPV viewing of someone else flying…it is great.

(Virtually) see you up there…in the (remotely-viewed) wild blue yonder.

Featured photo: BHAMNOW.com

Zero Zero V-Coptr Falcon New Bi-Copter Technology

The Falcon is the world’s first two-motor camera drone, and the first commercial tilt-rotor bi-copter. It was announced on January 17, 2020, and will begin shipping in February 2020. The feature-packed (thousand-dollar) drone is being ‘pre-sale’ reserved for a hundred dollars.

Using a unique bird-like design, the new Zero Zero Robotics bi-copter uses articulating arms and motor-propeller combinations to provide quad-copter performance, while providing an unprecedented fifty minute endurance (flight) time, from a single 4500mAh LiPro battery.

The tilt-rotor control allows the superior performance of a race drone, while a 4 K camera mounted on a three-axis gimbal provides the quality of a camera drone. Is this the big daddy of all cine-whoops? The big daddy of all camera drones? The company is offering refundable pre-purchase of the thousand dollar drone, which plans to start shipping in a couple weeks (February, 2020, to be more precise).

The 1/2.3″ CMOS camera allows 4K video at 30fps (frames per second). An improved visual tracking algorithm allow subject following, without use of a beacon. Pre-programmed flight modes (like dronie, rocket, helix, etc.) make aerial cinematography easy.

The drone offers obstacle avoidance through use of a front-facing stereo camera (two cameras collimated) and VIO (Visual Inertial Odometery*).

The pair of articulating propellers provide a different way to control an aircraft: yaw is controlled by tilting its rotors in opposite directions. Roll is controlled through differential (opposing) power or thrust. Pitch is provided through engine tilt. Vertical motion is controlled with conventional rotor blade pitch. The engine nacelles are controlled by servo motors and drive/reduction gears

The folding drone is roughly 8x5x2 inches, or around the size of a DJI Mavic Pro 2. While the Mavic Pro 2 looks admittedly cool, this drone may look even cooler (a non-technical, non-quantifiable term, but one I personally endorse, in this case). At just over a pound and a half, it is definitely a portable drone, just not a mini or micro or nano.

The (available) specifications are:

Folded Dimensions：220.6 X 148.26 X 72.38 mm (length × width × height)
Weight：730 g
Max Hovering Time：Up to 50 min
Max Wind Scale Resistance：Grade 5
Operating Temperature：0 ℃ – 40 ℃
Operating Frequency：2.4 GHz
GNSS：GPS + GLONASS
Internal Storage: 8 GB Max Capacity of External microSD Card: 256 GB

I will leave some of my normal specifications parameters blank, until I can find out from their Tech Support, or from the media releases, as it becomes available.

MFR: ShenZen Zero Zero Infinity Technology Company***

Type: Tilt-rotor bi-copter, MAME (Medium-Altitude, Medium Endurance).

Frame: V-strut center fuselage with two articulating struts and motor-propellers

Length 220.6 mm (8.68 in)

Width 148.26 mm (5.83 in)

Height 72.38 mm (2.85 in)

Weight: 730 grams (25.75 oz/1.6 lb)

Propulsion: Articulating ECM/Brushless motor, (x)KV, X-bladed propeller (x”)

Max Speed: undefined

Specifications mention Grade 5 wind resistance. In Beaufort’s Wind Scale, grade 5 is a fresh breeze with a speed of 17-21 knots. That’s 31-38 Km/h or 19-24 mph, so the aircraft has that capability, just to hover. DJI Mavic 2 Pro has a Grade 5 wind resistance, and a top speed of 65 kph (40 mph/34.75 kt/17.88 meters per second).

Obstacle Avoidance Speed: 7 m/s (25.2 kph, 15.66 mph, 13.6 kt)

Range 7km (4.34 mi/3.78 nmi)

Endurance 70 minutes, 50 minutes hover (battery time 2.5 hours)

Service Ceiling:

Sensors CMOS 4K video camera, 2x forward-facing navigation cameras

Gimbal 3-axis, 0-90 degree pitch

Camera 1/2.3″ CMOS, 12 MP, 77 degree FOV, 28 mm, F 2.2. 4K @ 30 fps, 2.7K @ 30, 60 fps, 1080 @ 30, 60 120 fps JPEG, RAW or JPEG/RAW photo, MP4 video

Radio Link 2.8 Ghz, FCC Part 15 Direct-Sequence Spread-Spectrum (DSSS)

Controller: ZR-100 B Blast Off (copy of FCC Part 15 Test Report at: https://fccid.io/document.php?id=4454794 )

Temperature: 0-40 degrees Celsius (32-104 degrees Fahrenheit)

Memory: 8 GB on-board, up to 256 GB SIM

Payload No visible payload attachments (no specification available)

The kit (999 USD) comes with a drone and BlastOff controller, a single battery (which lasts 2.5 hours!), a charger, charging cable, USB 3.0 cable, spare (single) set of propellers, gimbal cover, screwdriver, and carrying case

I have to tell you, I thought the same thing I thought when I first saw the SkyDio 2…”man, that blows all the other drones away,” and “man, I just gotta fly one of those.” The next thing I thought was also what I thought when I saw the SkyDio 2: “can I buy stock in this company?”

I’ll write more when I find out more specifics on this ground-breaking (or should I say sky-breaking?) little Falcon, and when I can get my pilot paws on one**, so stay tuned.

* Odometry is (according to Wikipedia) “use of data from motion sensors to estimate change in position over time. It is used in robotics by some legged or wheeled robots to estimate their position relative to a starting location. This method is sensitive to errors due to the integration of velocity measurements over time to give position estimates. Rapid and accurate data collection, instrument calibration, and processing are required in most cases for odometry to be used effectively”.

** Although the Falcon will start shipping in February 2020, there is no indication how much wait time is required if I order now.

*** ShenZen Balun Company also makes the innovative Hover Passport drone

P.S. Of course, not all (pre-flight) reviews from the CES (Consumer Electronics Exposition) were positive:

Here’s a demonstration video of the drone flying indoors…

The Drone Dictionary: Glossary of Terms

In the drone/UAS world, there are a number of specialized terms which are commonly used. I developed this list (and dictionary) not only for myself, but also for newcomers to the drone/RC/UAS/FPV world, as well as more experienced pilots.

It is intended to be a ‘living document’, and I will add terms as I learn them, and as time permits (when I’m not flying). Your input on any terms I may have missed is greatly appreciated. Here goes version one, off the ground…

Artificial Intelligence Type of computer-based ‘intelligence’, where decisions are made not by specified software coding or operator commands, but via machine-learning; a computer is given a basic set of objectives, parameters, and rules, and through experience in a decision-making matrix and analysis of the results, improves performance. SkyDio 2 drone is the first true AI-based UAV at the time of this version (January 2020)

Auto-exposure bracketing Using a series of photographs, each taken at a different light exposure, and creating a resultant image which uses the best resolution from each of the aggregate photos

Auto-level Flight mode where a UAV returns to ‘level’ on the horizontal plane when no active commands are being sent from the remote controller

Autonomic Flight mode requiring no command inputs from a UAV pilot. Also, systems that function without specific operator commands

Axis A fixed (and imaginary) line for the reference of coordinates. In the drone world, these typically refer to spatial coordinates, such as X, Y, and Z (horizontal forward, horizontal left or right, and vertical)

Band Frequency range dedicated for specific use (e.g., X-Band, C-band, etc.)

Bi-Copter Aircraft with two sets of propellers. Bi-copters use two movable struts attached to a fuselage, with articulating motor/propellers at the end of each arm.

Bind: Initial synchronization of remote controller to aircraft/UAV

Brush: Type of traditional DC motor (less power and more noise than brushless)

Breakups: Interruptions in the video return signal, due to interference

Brushless: Type of electric motor where coils (synchronous motor) or magnets (asynchronous motor) rotate in fixed case. See ECM-Electrically-commutated motor

Camera Drone UAV designed and intended primarily for aerial cinematography. These UAV typically have more stabilization and autonomy features than racing drones, as well as less speed and poorer flight response.

Cine-whoop: Small UAV with higher-quality HD camera onboard, in addition to FPV cam

Canopy Plastic or carbon shroud for onboard FPV camera

Collision Avoidance An (often notional) scheme for UAV to detect nearby aircraft, calculate the potential for collision, and maneuver to avoid collisions. In manned aircraft, often referred to as ACAS (Aircraft Collision and Avoidance Systems)

Community-based organization FAA-approved organization of special-interest groups within the flying community, often seeking to represent the entire community. Traditional or legacy groups (and the only FAA-approved CBO) are model aircraft flying organizations (such as AMA; see glossary of acronyms and abbreviations)

Copter Traditional helicopter configuration, with one top rotor and a stabilizer

Counter-Drone (1) A set of emerging technologies based at detection, disabling, destruction, or theft of UAV (2) An emerging industry based on selling of counter-drone technology goods and services. Both are currently known by the acronym of C-UAS

Dick Derogatory term for person interfering with drone flights, or harassing drone operators without reason

Dipole: Type of ‘stick’ antenna which broadcasts an omnidirectional signal

Diversity: Having two systems to perform one function. In UAS, diversity receivers use two types of antennae (typically one dipole and one circularly-polarized); the receiver switches between antenna inputs if the receiver senses poor signal coming from the on-line antenna

Drone A UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle), typically using RC (Radio Control) to fly from a remote location. The entire system (drone/UAV and remote controller and RP (Remote Pilot) comprise a UAS (Unmanned Aircraft System).

Dronie A type of self-photograph taken with a drone (derived from ‘selfie’)

Electrically-commutated motor (ECM, aka Brushless DC Motor -BLDC) is typically a synchronous motor (uses a fixed magnet around which coils rotate), but can also be asynchronous (fixed coil with magnets rotating around it). Produces high speed, requires low maintenance, and results in high power-to-weight (PWR). See also ‘brushless’

F-1 Class of FPV racing

Failsafe: Flight mode which provides a degree of protection to the aircraft in case of low battery or system failures; attempts to provide safe, controlled landing prior to crash

Flight path Intended or actual route of an aircraft through space. A flight path can follow a pre-made flight-plan, or be extemporaneous, and occur as the pilot decides in each moment. A record of a flight path is the actual route taken by the aircraft, as determined by GPS positions and recorded by software

Flow: Type of fast, smooth, and fluid flying

Flyaway Condition where aircraft flies ‘away’ (beyond intended flight path and beyond remote pilot control); typically ascribed to electromagnetic interference (EMI) or malfunction in the UAV

Follow-me Type of UAV which (through common sensors and basic collision-detection or through Artificial Intelligence -AI) autonomously follows a designated subject (or object) without manual commands from a pilot

Gaper Derogatory term for person who views drone/UAV flight operations (often disturbing pilots and/or operations) without actually flying on their own

Geo-Fencing Technique wherein manufacturers exclude certain geographic areas from flight (via software). The area are indicated by various governmental authorities. For example, the US ‘White House’ (and many other places, such as airports) are geo-fenced by some manufacturers to preclude the possibility of flying there.

Gimbal Am electro-mechanical device used to stabilize a camera. Gimbals typically come in two or three-axis configurations.

Goggles FPV headset, allowing remote viewing of UAV video

Ground Effect A phenomenon which results in (relative) increased lift and (relative) decreased aerodynamic drag an aircraft’s wings generate when close to the ground (or other relatively fixed horizontal surface, like the deck of an aircraft carrier). Ground effect gives the pilot the sensation that the aircraft is ‘floating’

Ground Effect Zone The area where proximity to the ground affects an aircraft’s performance. For fixed wing, it is half the distance of the wingspan (or less). For ‘rotor-craft’, it depends on rotor and propeller type and configuration, but the effect is generally low for recreational UAV. The ‘suckdown’ and ‘fountain’ currents near the ground can cause a variation in hovering ability, and increased thrust.

Gyroscope A device used for measuring or maintaining orientation and angular velocity. Traditionally, it was a spinning wheel or disc in which the axis of rotation was free to assume any orientation by itself. In the UAS world, electronic gyroscopes are used

H-frame Basic UAV frame with central axis and two pairs of arms extended at each end

Headless Flight mode with no reference between UAV position and orientation of the remote controller. In headless mode, ‘forward’ is away from the controller and ‘reverse’ is towards the controller, regardless of UAV orientation in space.

Helipad Type of ‘mat’ from which UAV can be launched or landed. Typically an orange circle with a white letter H (N America) or a blue circle with a white letter H (Europe)

Hex Hex-copter; a type of UAV with six rotors and no stabilizer (more lift than a quad)

Inverter Device that converts DC current to AC current (another method is to use a switching power supply, most commonly used in ESC)

Jello Distortion (‘wobble’) caused by sensor video-capture limitations at high speed

KV Term to describe a motor’s efficiency; RPM (revolution per minute) per input of one volt. For example an 8KV motor

Latency Amount of delay in a transmission signal. For example, if a FPV vTX (video transmission) link has 100ms (1/10^th of a second) delay and a UAV is flying at 50mph, then by the time the pilot ‘sees’ the image, the UAV has already gone 6.1 feet further

Matty Flip A backwards roll, similar to a ‘gainer’ in diving

Micro Class of quadcopter which generally fits into the hand

Nano Class of quadcopter which generally fits into the palm

Octa-copter Type of UAV with eight rotors (and no stabilizer); has the most lift capacity

Over the Horizon Flight beyond the horizon (as viewed by the remote pilot (RP). Note flying beyond the line of sight (LOS) may not be over the horizon, while over the horizon is always beyond line of sight.

Park Area dedicated to or used for drone flying and racing

Payload The device or material an aircraft carries, beyond its standard configuration. Payload could be an extra camera or sensor, lighting system, military ordinance, etc.

Photogrammetery A method of mapping using aerial photographs, ‘stitched’ together electronically, by means of a mapping program

Pitch (1) The rotation of an aircraft about the ‘Z’ axis; the nose of the aircraft appears to move up or down, when referenced from the horizontal axis, in the direction of travel (2) The angle of a propeller, determining its lift and performance

Point of Interest The intended destination or waypoint along a flight path.

Power roll

Prop Short term (contraction) for propeller

Propeller Device which converts mechanical power to lift. Types are defined as NxMxP, where N is the blade length in inches, M is the pitch in degrees, and P is the number of blades. For example, a 5x4x3 propeller would have 5 inch blades, canted at 4 inches, and three blades.

Quad Quadra-copter; a type of UAV with four rotors and no stabilizer

Radio General term for the radio remote controller

Return to Home RTH is a flight mode where the UAV will return to the point of launch, if a battery low state is sensed, or if radio control link with the UAV is lost

Roll Motion of an aircraft in the ‘Y’ axis; the sides of the aircraft rotate up or down in reference to the horizontal axis.

S Term for number of LiPo cells in a battery. Each cell (‘S’) is equivalent to 3.7VDC

Sag Quick drop in battery capacity, due to age or cold weather

Sense and Avoid A category of collision avoidance r set of capabilities allowing a UAV to sense the presence of nearby aircraft or obstacles, and avoid them through flight maneuvers

Tri-Copter A type of UAV with three sets of propellers (typically two fore (front) and one aft (rear). AKA ‘tri’

Trim Small (minute or ‘vernier’) adjustments to a flight parameter. For example, most remote controllers offer ‘trim’ adjustments to slightly vary a flight parameter (for example, pitch, yaw, or roll)

Turnt-Up A UAV that is optimized with the best components; high speed and maneuverability

TV Lines A measure of basic FPV video quality. TVL (the abbreviation) define horizontal lines as they would be displayed on a TV. The higher the number, the better the quality.

Ultra-sonic Type of sensor where a transmitter sends out a sound ‘pulse’ and a co-located receiver measures reception time of the pulse, converting into a distance/proximity measurement. A sort of audio ‘radar’.

Visual Observer FAA-designated aircrew member who is responsible for visually scanning the flight area for obstacles, while the RPIC (Remote Pilot in Command) is flying with FPV (First Person View) goggles

Waypoints Set of coordinates defining a point in space along an actual or intended flight path. Autonomous systems can fly by navigating between set waypoints.

Whoop A small, fast (typically) FPV quad

X-frame Type of UAV frame with no central axis fuselage, frame in the shape of an X

Yaw Measure of the rotation of an aircraft about the ‘X’ axis; the nose of the drone appears to move left or right, when referenced to the horizontal axis, in the direction of travel

Zed UK-based method of pronouncing the letter Z (as opposed to international aviation and military phonetic usage, where Z is pronounced ‘Zulu’)

Note: For more technical and general acronym definitions, see A) Drone Dictionary: Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations B) The Complete Drone Dictionary C) The Complete Drone Encyclopedia, (C) 2019, 2020 Mark F. Mullen

Note 2: Drone Dictionary: Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations is published on this blog, approximate publication date January 2020

Walkera F210 RTF F1 Racing Drone

By all accounts, the Walkera F210RTF is a zippy little thing, and virtually indestructible. It is a F1 class racing drone, with an on-board HD (High Defintion) day and night camera with IR (infraRed) surveillance mode (in a protective housing, which allows full gimbal travel). I can hardly wait to get my hands on it, and some FPV goggles connected to it.

This little MAV racing drone is (possibly) going to be my first RTF (Ready To Fly) racing drone with FPV (First-Person View) capability (it’s a top contender as of now). I intend to fly it by controller only until I get good (and budget the money for Walkera FPV goggles or DJI digtal FPV goggles, if they are compatible). DJI FPV ‘Fly More’ kit advertisement says you can ‘FPV anything’, and I just might FPV this little rocket…

The problem is I would have to add the DJI air unit as payload, and either also add a separate battery as payload (where to put it?) or…
See if I could use an AUX port on the existing power board (if there is one, and it is accessible)

The specifications (as far as I have yet found) are:

Nomenclature: Walkera F210 RTF

MFR: Guangzhou Walkera Co, Ltd

Type: MAV Quadcopter, MASE (Medium Altitude, Short Endurance)

Fuselage: 210 Size (F-1 Racing), Bow-body with equidistant axis, carbon fiber

Wingspan: N/A

Length:182 mm (7.16 in)

Width: 182 mm (7.16 in)

Height: 103 mm (4.05 in)

Weight: 370g (13 oz) AUW with battery

Propulsion: 4 x BDC motors (KV 2500) 0.7A, 22g (WK-WS-28-014A)

Rotors: 128mm (5.03 in) 4g, ABS+PC, self-locking propellers

Max Speed: 80 kph (49.7 mph/43.19 kt)

Cruise Speed: As desired

Endurance: 8-9 min (2-D mode) 5 min (3-D mode)

Range: 800 m (2624 ft)

Ceiling:

Sensors: Night vision High Definition (HD) 120 degree adjustable FOV FPV camera 1MP (700TVL, 1vpp, 75 ohm) SONY 976 x 582 (2.8 mm, F1.9) with IR mode

Lighting: LED running lights/searchlight (2)

Payload: No payload adaptor or mounting. Capacity =X

Battery: 14.8V 1300mAh, 40C, 4S (4-cell) LiPo

Remote Controller: Walkera DEVO-7 (2.4GHz) ARM DSSS (Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum) RX-713 (8x AA batteries)

Flight Controller: SP Racing F3, 16-bit ARM, on-board accelerometer and magnetic compass (FCS-F210)

My concerns in getting this are A) no obvious place to mount a GoPro (or DJI FPV air unit), and B) no existing way to record as it is. I also C) would prefer the best video I can get, and the Walkera drones do not pair with other (perhaps better) FPV goggles (they must use the Walkera Goggle 4s).

So I’ve been researching my little heart out, because I really want this little drone, for some reason. In the worst case, I guess I could buy it and fly it and then if I still felt I needed an upgrade, then slowly add my own ESC or flight controller,and maybe change out the camera to an upgraded video system I like. (Heck, at that point I could just do a separate build, but I kinda like the idea of a having a ‘souped-up’, custom version of this drone. We’ll see…

(If I decide to get this baby, then…) as time goes by, I will do some altitude, payload, and other performance tests, and write a new blog (and maybe upload some YouTube videos) about this, once I’ve flown it a bit. For now, I am just writing and dreaming…as I compare it to other RTF and ARTF (Almost Ready to Fly) drones, to ensure this is the one…the drone I will first experience FPV racing capabilities with. Eventually, I’ll build my own, but for now, this seems to be the quick way to get in the air with something that has a little more performance than your average ‘camera drone’.

Stay tuned…

Drone FPV: Forbidden Point-of-View

Ever since humans could dream, and imagine how the world might look outside their narrow field-of-view (FOV), ever since people looked up at birds soaring overhead, they have wondered what it was like to fly. With the advent of UAS (Unmanned Aerial Systems) and FPV (First-Person View) technology, this dream has become a reality.

Finally, to the well-equipped, the ability to get a bird’s eye view (heck, to get a rocket’s-eye view, for that matter) is within reach (potential, if not financial). For those with the bucks and the desire, though, that age-old dream has become a reality. Icarus, eat your heart out.

Racing drones and YouTube have popularized the potential of FPV, and brought it to the public consciousness. Camera drones have brought an inkling of the possibilities to the majority of UAS pilots. Modern technology does the rest.

To understand an FPV system, we must first understand a basic camera-equipped UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle). A gimbal (a sort of mechanical gyroscope for a camera) stabilizes the camera, so the normal variation of motion in the drone does not result in an unsettling ‘wobbling’ of the video received from the drone. The gimbal compensates (and to a degree ‘stabilizes’) the image in the return video feed.

This is an application aimed toward drone cinematography (taking pictures or video from the unique POV- Point of View– of the drone). A stable camera means good photographs (or films). Another use of gimbals on UAV-mounted camera is (if connected to a servo system and drive motor) to move the camera in the direction of the eyes of the RP (Remote Pilot). This may not provide good camera shots, but it does provide a sense of realism to the RP, and the ability to ‘look around’ as one pilots the aircraft (at least as far as the gimbal/camera can travel).

A third alternative is to ‘fix’ the gimbal (locking the camera and POV straight ahead (following the drone’s direction of travel). All of these options are used in FPV flying, with an emphasis on one or the other, depending on the application.

Let’s not get too deep pinto the details. For now, suffice to say that camera and gimbal technology allow an RP to have a virtual bird’s eye or pilot’s eye view, as required. That imagery is sent to an on-board vTX (Video Transmitter), over the radio link with the controller, and to a set of FPV ‘goggles’, equipped with a vRX (Video Receiver) and display unit, typically an LCD (Liquid Crystal Diode) screen.

Presto! The pilot is now seeing what the drone ‘sees’. The sense is that a pilot (without having to leave the ground) can finally have the bird’s eye view humans have been dreaming of for so long.

The problem is, most drones only have a single camera. This provides a ‘flat’, ‘one-eyed’ effect. To have a sense of true depth perception (and potential 3-D or three-dimensional effect), one must have stereo-optic (two-eyed) vision, as humans do. This would require mounting two cameras on the UAV, both somehow stabilized and controlled by gimbals, sending video feeds to two separate displays. Previously, the cost of this technology (if even available, which it wasn’t) would have been prohibitive for the average citizen. Now, it is within reach…technically, and financially.

Two cameras (and associated vTX) on the drone require two separate lenses (and associated vRX) on the ground, in the FPV goggles. To truly look like one coherent image, the IPD (Inter-Pupillary Distance) must be set correctly. Once all these things are accomplished, an RP can truly experienced near-3D FPV. It is truly like virtually being there.

Oh, wait. One more improvement has just come over the horizon. Seeking to replace the analog video of traditional FPV, DJI recently (31 July, 2019) released digital FPV goggles. Less subject to video ‘drop-outs’ and noise, the digital transmission (over an error-control and correction -ECC-radio data-link) provides HD (High-Definition) quality video at frame rates from 30 fps (frames per second, around what the human eye sees), to 60 fps and even 120 fps (for the eerily hyper-real video -with little or no ‘motion blur’ as our eyes see – effect).

Now, as we have achieved this historical dream of our species…as it has become technically possible and financially available to a large portion of the public…that view is being forbidden.

Under the guise of safety, FPV flying has been virtually outlawed, as the RP (per the FAA or Federal Aviation Administration) cannot ‘look around’ and see other aircraft, or have the full situational awareness the pilot of a manned aircraft would have. Even though manned aircraft are not allowed to fly under 500 foot AGL (Above Ground Level), and UAVs are limited to a maximum of 400′ AGL, the FAA claims this supposed limitation of FPV flying precludes it from being safe.

Adding proposed constraints on ‘amateur-built’ aircraft (as virtually all capable FPV racers are), and especially those which do not possess Remote ID and Tracking capabilities (as installed and verified by a recognized manufacturer), the FAA is set to shoot down this newly-realized dream, in the interest of clearing the skies of recreational drones…in order to allow multinational corporations to profit from UAS-based delivery services (of commercial goods that can be ordered overnight -for less- from the Internet, and sent for home delivery by an actual human).

Yes, like Icarus and the Bloody Red Baron, FPV pilots (who have so recently achieved the ages-old dream) will soon be shot down – by an out-of-control bureaucracy, in the interest of corporate entities seeking profit, to accommodate the consumer’s desire for more ‘stuff’ – now. That’s the sad (but so often unspoken) truth of the matter.

Now I hate to be a storm-crow, and prefer to write about more joyous things, like the FPV goggles I plan to get, or the cool new race quad, or the fascinating technical developments that occur regularly these days…but this is one time putting my head in the sand or whistling past the graveyard will not help. In fact, ignorance of an inaction in regard to these proposed plans will aid in killing the dream.

Sure there will always be those who will ignore the laws, and try to reach the skies regardless of what any government says…rebel flyers who try to keep the dream alive…but it looks as if they will be flying in the face of the combined might of the System, which is equipped with better drones, with monitoring and jamming techniques. Maybe those rebels will have to go to Mexico to fly free…or Bora-Bora…or one of the few remaining countries where a person can fly free, without constraint…as we’ve always dreamed we could.

Yet for the rest of us, for those who have just started experiencing this, for those who haven’t yet started but would eventually love to, for those of us who would prefer to be law-abiding citizens…what then?

Well, the FAA proposes to ‘allow’ us to (for a fee) fly at FAA-Recognized Identification Areas (FRIA, ironically pronounced as ‘free-uh’). Yes, that’s right, in lieu of flying like a bird, soaring like an eagle, they propose to ‘allow’ us to fly around in virtual bird-cages, in little drone parks where we can fly around and around in circles.

Yeah now that I think of it, maybe that is what those cavemen were dreaming of so long ago….I wonder what it would be like to fly around like a bird in a cage? Yeah, that’s the dream…or at least the FAA (-Amazon-Google-DHS) version of it.

Icarus never had it so bad…

The Late, Great “Maintenance Man”

I entered the military at the end of an era…that of the “maintenance man”. It was the late seventies (1970’s), and the Army (and the rest of society) was transitioning from the analog, vacuum-tube world to the ‘solid-state’ world. We were at the edge of the world of integrated circuits (IC) and PCB (Printed Circuit Boards). Yet there was enough ‘old stuff’ out there that ‘maintenance men’ were still required.

I mean, Uncle Sam had bought these million-dollar systems and someone had to keep them working (often long past their stated life expectancy). Enter the maintenance man…some guy (like me) who had gone to a year or more of school to perform component-level repairs on electronic and electro-mechanical systems. He was the ‘go-to guy’ if your radar or satellite communications system went south. He was often the one guy within miles who could make sense of things, and get the darn thing working right.

As such, his position required not only in-depth electronic knowledge, but also the ability to think (and act) on his feet, during critical, often stressful situations. When an air defense radar system was ‘down’ or a critical satellite communications link was inoperable, you can believe me when I tell you the stress was on.

This was before the days of swapping out a circuit board (or an entire system). This was before computer diagnostics or software-guided maintenance. It was you and a schematic and a broken radar, or SATCOM link, or aircraft. It was you and the base of Q7, or you finding if it was R143 or C127 that was the problem. That was maintenance. You and no one else, in the middle of the night. God wasn’t going to fix it, or even give you a hint what might be wrong. You had to determine that…and fix it. You and you alone.

Nowadays, the maintenance man has gone the way of the dodo bird.

No longer needed were year-long (expensive) courses, touchy techno-nerds, and a reliance on technical proficiency.

As software-based intelligence pervaded the system, those tasks were performed by computer diagnostics, by built-in self-test capabilities, and by other automated functions. As AI (Artificial Intelligence) pervades the system, even the few remaining equipment operators/system operators will be replaced by a self-monitoring and self-repairing system. I don’t mean something simple like automatic swapping to backup systems. I mean repair, or at least, requests (commands) for the required systems or components…without the need for human intervention

Yeah, the day of the ‘maintenance man’ is long past. Vestiges of him survive, mostly on Navy ships where manufacturer support is not available, and overnight FedEx doesn’t exist. Out there, it still boils down to some poor sailor, a screaming captain (and chief), and some critical system that doesn’t work…whose inoperable status jeopardizes the welfare of the entire (zillion-dollar) ship, and the lives of every sailor aboard.

Nowadays, when we think maintenance man, we think of a janitor who keeps up the building, or maybe a handyman who changes a few light bulbs and swaps out things that ‘go bad.’

But there are things from that long-gone maintenance world and ethic which need to survive…things which can help us in keeping our own aircraft systems flying and operable.

Sure, you’ll never have to troubleshoot your Mavic Pro to the component level, but if you apply a few of these principle and paradigms, you might find you are a better flier and airman in as a result, and maybe keep your drone in the air a bit longer. Heck, they could even make you a better pilot. It will sure make you more knowledgeable.

Some of those things are:

Proficiency – a maintenance man knew his system in and out

Attention to Detail – a maintenance man performed his tasks carefully and critically

Vesting – the system maintained became ‘his’ (or ‘hers’ *); it relied on him

Sense of Urgency – knowledge one’s actions were important; things went down if something went wrong

I could go on and on, as my chief so often did, but those are the four primary attributes that come to mind, the four which can help us better maintain our own flight systems.

I guess what this is all leading up to is the need for maintenance – good, old-fashioned maintenance. We no longer need to perform checks and alignments (or not many), and rarely need to swap anything out, much less troubleshoot it beyond the major sub-system level (quickly done by ‘shotgunning’ one of the two or three major parts which could be the cause).But we still need to logically, carefully and safely perform what few checks are required of us. We must keep a log and perform our maintenance regularly, periodically, and by a well thought-out schedule.

When we prepare to fly our ‘birds’, we can check closely and carefully all components, and the state of the visible systems and sub-systems. An amateur just looks (glances) at the drone, and then pushes the power on button, ready to fly. A professional carefully and critically inspects the propellers, the fuselage, the camera, the motors…everything he or she can get their eye on.

This can help detect either outright or incipient problem areas, allow the chance for maintenance before those problem areas result in the thing ‘going south’ in mid-flight (and the potential resultant loss of the drone/aircraft). Once they push the power on button they are then truly ready to fly.

Sure, things could still go wrong, and issues could exist that pre-flight checks and inspections could not identify. But they have taken due diligence in making sure everything they could do, was done. That’s all a “maintenance man” can do

*In those days, women had just been ‘admitted’ to the army (and to much of society itself). Thus, terms like fireman, maintenance man, and garbage man were commonly used. When I use those terms here, I use them for purposes of historical accuracy, not as some kind of misogynistic, Freudian slip. Pilots and maintenance personnel (a better term, as it is transparent to sex and gender) are both male and female, and in this document, all individuals who seek a higher standard of performance and care for their systems are considered One in ‘maintenance unity’, with no distinctions made. Disclaimer finished.

UAS Service Suppliers(USS) They Are NOT Going Away

In reading through the Homeland Secure Digital Library and trying to understand DHS (Department of Homeland Security) view of UAS presence and traffic management, I came across a NASA (National Aeronautic and Space Administration) white paper on UAS Traffic Management (UTM).

The rather long-winded title “The Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) Service Supplier (USS) Framework for Authentication and Authorization (UFAA)” tells us a little bit about USS (UTM Service Suppliers) and their longevity in the Drone World…(if we can read between the lines)

They define the UFAA (USS Framework for Authentication and Authorization) as the ‘basis for secure and confidential data exchanges between Flight Information Management Systems (FIMS) and the USS network and within the USS network itself.” While the report (NASA/TM-2019-220364, by Joseph Rios, Irene Smith, and Priya Venkatesen) defines notional (not yet ‘operational’) concepts, its existence alone speaks volumes about the USS longevity.

A copy of the report can be found here: https://www.hdsl.org/?view&did=831582

Per the (48-page) report, the stated goal of UTM is “providing safe, efficient, and fair access to the low altitude airspace for small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS).”

The report primarily covers basic protocol and security aspects of data interchanges between USS. Most of it would be of interest only to software coders and hackers. What is more interesting than the technical particulars is the fact that the report is even being written at all, at a point in the rule-making process where a USS remains notional. Theoretically, the USS concept hasn’t even been adopted yet, nor has remote ID.

This speaks volumes about the rule-making process and the existence of USS. This is not a report of a notional scheme that may or may not be approved, but that of one which is a foregone conclusion. It is a set of instructions on which the (theoretically) yet unnamed USS (mostly identified in an FAA document in August 2019) can begin to base their operations, write the appropriate code to implement such a scheme, and bring these ‘services’ more quickly into operation.

Now if these were free benefits the government provided to ensure air traffic was safer and we personally could fly safer, I’d agree to calling them services. But if this scheme and protocol defines something a third party can charge me for (effectively placing a cost on air operations), I must ask…service to whom? The private corporation which will make money from us for the privilege of being able to fly in a Remote ID ‘ecosystem’ (one which was imposed on us without consultation)? The FAA? The stakeholders like DHS and law enforcement? The huge corporations who stand to profit by this?

In that case, the answer may be ‘all of the above’…in which all (or any) does not include you and I, the recreational flier and private citizen. All that’s asked from us is our money (as well as name and address)…and our age. That was another information field I found interesting. In describing the protocol fields, my information boiled down to ‘first name, last name, age, and an unspecified ‘number’.

I’m sure the USS would require a bit more, like a credit card number, expiration date, and a three-digit authentification code on the back. (Fields for additional data like facial-recognition parameters, social ‘score’, etc. could be added later). Oh yeah, the USS (and cops) would probably also want my verified address and maybe even my social security number…to safeguard and protect via ‘trusted’ public encryption systems.

But I digress. Back to the report.

To the uninitiated, it mostly looks like a babble of techno terms and a few sketchy diagrams. Yet this is the clue…the clue that (as I’ve been saying) FAA Remote ID and Tracking is a done deal. Google wants it. The DHS wants it. Amazon wants it. Done deal.

Of other notable interest is a new list of acronyms and abbreviations – for something that isn’t even official yet. (Among the list are some older terms software and techno geeks already know). Heck, I bet if we could peek in the drawers or files of these ‘notional’ USS, we’d see some already-developed (or quickly-developing)rate plans, costs, and terms of service. I’d bet the darn farm on it, even though I have no hard evidence, other than this documents and its (effective) technical directives, described as a notional framework for operations.

So there it is. I read this thing thoroughly, and checked some of the links and references with interest, being a bit of a techno-geek. But don’t believe me – read it for yourself.

Just to spice things up, I’ll add a few new acronyms to add to your growing list of UAS acronyms. (I’ll also update the Drone Dictionary on this blog, so you won’t have to remember them). I won’t bore you with the entire list, but some of the more interesting (and relevant) are:

ABAC Atrribute-Based Access Control

ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider

DREAD Damage, Reproducibility, Exploitability, Affected users, Discoverability

FIMS Flight Information management System

IETF Internet Engineering Task Force

PKI Public Key Infrastructure (!!!)

SHA-256 Secure Hash Algorithm, 256-bit

UUIDv4 Universally Unique IDentifier, version 4

Well there it is.

I was always cautioned not to take any wooden nickels. So, next time someone tells you that this Remote ID thing is just notional, or that if enough of us write in we can change it, I remind you of one good security protocol…don’t take any wooden nickels.

Note: for those not willing to ‘wade through’ 48 pages of techno-speak, the primary author’s slide show presentation (from the 2018 FAA V&V Summit) is linked here:

https://www.faa.gov/about/offices_org/headquarters_offices/ang/offices/tc/library/v&vsummit2018/presentations/3%20Joseph%20Rios%202018%20V+V%20Summit%20v20180916.pdf

Micro-Drone Madness: Cheerson CX-10

The Cheerson CX-10 makes my DJI Mavic Mini look like a maxi. This micro-drone (some call it a nano-drone*) is radio-controlled, and uses either a remote controller or (in some variants) a smartphone. Although defined as a ‘toy drone’, the skill required to fly it makes it applicable more for fairly skilled pilots, rather than beginners.

This aircraft has neither GPS or altimeter to stabilize hover, so (like race drones) it will crash or land if not constantly commanded. Other CX-10 variants have a barometric altimeter to allow stable (-ish) hovering capabilities, and other drones in the CX-series incorporate GPS (Global Positioning System) receivers for stable hovering.

But this is just raw drone. No camera, no bells and whistles; nothing but incredibly small, relatively fast drone. Of course, with a drone this small, one can’t expect long endurance, extended range, or flight times greater than about ten minutes (see specifications below).

It is my next drone purchase, and for the price, it is hard to pass up. For less than the price of a large, two-topping pizza, you can have a fun (mostly indoor) drone instead…and it has zero calories and zero fat!

It is truly a marvel of technology and miniaturization, even to those of us who have quickly become jaded to technological advances, and lead to expect more and more (capability) for less and less (money).

Of course, this drone won’t fight a MQ-1 Reaper or out-fly a hot racing drone. It won’t carry your GoPro or FLIR camera. It will just simply fly…and provide flying fun, which is just what it is designed to do.

I typically don’t incorporate null and subjective terms like ‘fun’ in reviews and specifications (since I can’t find a formula to define it or tests to quantify it), but that x-factor is more important than us empirical, facts-based fliers like to admit. So while you won’t find a parameter for ‘fun’ in the specifications below, the CX-10 is loaded with fun (once you learn to fly it, and even during the time you are learning).

Type: LASE (Low-Altitude, Short-Endurance) quad-copter

MFR: Guangdon Cheerson Hobby Technologies

Introduced: June 2014

Nomenclature: CX-10 ‘UFO’

Wingspan: N/A

Length: 40 mm (1.5748 in)

Width: 40 mm (1.5748 in)

Height: 22 mm (0.866 in)

Weight: 15 grams (0.529 oz)

Gyroscope: 6-axis for improved stability

Engine(s): 3-speed electric motor (6 mm x 20 mm core-less)

Rotors: 2.9 cm (1.14 in), fixed-pitch

Battery: 3.7v, 100mAh LiPo (15-30 min charge time)

Speed: 7 mph (11.26 kph/6.08 kt) (estimated)

Range: 20-50 m (65-154 ft)

Endurance: 4-8 minutes

Ceiling: 120 ft (36.57 m)

Payload: Estimated 4-6 grams (un-tested) 26.6%-40% of weight

Indicators: On-board LED (2x blue- front, 2x red-rear)

Armaments: None in civilian version (JK)

Sensor (s): None

Controller: 2.4 Ghz, 4-channel, 2 ea AAA batteries

Cost: 18-35 USD

Variants include the CX-10 A (with ‘headless’ course-lock mode), CX-10 C (with 640 x 480, 16 fps camera), CX-10 D (with high-density air pressure sensor for hover stabilization), CX-10 W (with wifi, smartphone control), CX-10WD (with wifi control, air pressure sensor for hover stabilization, and a 720 x 540, 16 fps camera)

Other drones in the CX-series provide more features and capabilities. In future blogs, I may define their specifications, and make a comparison chart

There have been a number of reviews for the Cheerson CX-10, and below is one from YouTube.

While this drone may not replace my DJI Mavic Mini (or even my on-order SkyDio, or an FPV/race quad), it does make a nice addition to anyone’s drone fleet, and one that will not ‘break the bank’. In the future, I’ll be doing some tests to define exact payload capacity, and its effect on flight times, and some other experiments I am considering. Stay tuned for more updates.

For now, all this writing about drones has got me excited to go fly. So, see you out there…(or perhaps I should say see you UP there…in the skies). More later; for now it’s off I go, into the wild, blue yonder.

(Cover Photo: Drone Rush)

* The UAS Yearbook (7th Edition) defines the distinction as follows: “NAVs are defined as small air vehicles with an operating range less than 1 km, a maximum flight altitude around 100 m, endurance less than one hour, and maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of 25 g while MAVs are defined as 5 kg MTOW with endurance around 1 hour and an operative range around 10 km”, where NAV is Nano Air Vehicle and MAV is Micro Air Vehicle. A more common distinction is a nano drone fits in your palm, while a micro drone may be a bit larger.