Flying robots?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Marc S.

Are they still doing that? I remember the card field last year at cmp, but they promoted it as a pilot and i haven't seen anything on usfirst about it recently.

FIRST isn't doing it, but CARD is still going--there was a thread on it revived a few hours ago. They're competing in April, IIRC.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by EricH

A note where I'm coming from on safety: Safety is a top concern. I compete in the SAE Aero Design competition. (OP, you're in CA; if you want to relax the day after the L.A. Regional, come on out to the R/C field in Van Nuys and watch a few dozen teams of college students crashfly their heavy-lift planes.) At this competition, with full aircraft-designed systems and at least decent pilots, flying planes that are roughly 1/3 of the weight of an FRC robot in a wide-open space, spectators are behind a fence, which is behind a row of trees, roughly 50 feet away from the side of the runway. Any plane that looks like it's heading for the trees is ordered downed on the spot, and there are a number of other safety measures in place to prevent injury in case something goes SNAFU. FIRST doesn't have anywhere near the safety measures for full-fledged flight by the robots, IMO. (CARD has better safety measures, including netting around the field to "restrain" errant robots.)

Interesting. The International Aerial Robotics Competition (in 2007 and 2008, at least) took a different approach to safety.

Competitors were permitted to fly in much closer proximity to buildings, people and other equipment, because the challenge involved identifying and delivering payloads into a building. Nevertheless, there were certain areas designated as a restricted, and only event staff and vehicle crews were allowed in.

There were a couple interesting incidents, including the crash of a poorly-executed small helicopter UAV in proximity to a judge and its pilot.

Our 45 kg aircraft was allowed to pass almost directly over spectators at an altitude of around 50 m, after demonstrating a payload delivery pass under manual control.

All vehicles were required to be "rendered ballistic" upon command, for safety. Is that what SAE Aero Design mandates?

Originally Posted by EricH

FIRST isn't doing it, but CARD is still going--there was a thread on it revived a few hours ago. They're competing in April, IIRC.

I wonder what prompted FIRST to drop it (or the organizers to sever ties)?

[Aren Siekmeier]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

I wonder what prompted FIRST to drop it (or the organizers to sever ties)?

CARD is indeed still going (I'm working with the U of M team affiliated with GO FIRST) and the competition will be in May most likely, at a location tbd.

This is how I understand it: CARD was originally organized by a few students from Illinois Institute of Technology who wanted a robotics program in college that remained affiliated with/similar to FIRST. Thus the Collegiate Aerial Robotics Demonstration was started, and FIRST agreed to host the pilot event at the championship last year. This year, FIRST has told the organizers of the program that they'd like to remain focused on the existing programs, so CARD (or whatever it will be called in the future) is independent of FIRST. But the season is in full swing, and we're currently working on a aerial vehicle and a ground vehicle that will collaborate in the new game.

The somewhat outdated website is at http://collegiateaerialrobotics.org.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Interesting. The International Aerial Robotics Competition (in 2007 and 2008, at least) took a different approach to safety.

Competitors were permitted to fly in much closer proximity to buildings, people and other equipment, because the challenge involved identifying and delivering payloads into a building. Nevertheless, there were certain areas designated as a restricted, and only event staff and vehicle crews were allowed in.
[...]
All vehicles were required to be "rendered ballistic" upon command, for safety. Is that what SAE Aero Design mandates?

There's a difference between flying and having the ground repel you.

Helicopters (rotary-wing aircraft) are generally more maneuverable than airplanes (fixed-wing aircraft). This allows them to fly into tighter spaces than almost any airplane. There is no comparison between the maneuverability of a 45 kg helo that is designed to fly at 45 kg (little/no payload) and that of a 10-20 lb plane that's carrying up to 4x its own weight, and is rather underpowered. The helo will win a maneuverability contest every time given that both pilots know what they're doing.

Aero Design is all about the payload. (OK, unless you're Micro Class--then you get the box-packing, unpacking, and launching challenges added...) IARC is not.

SAE's mandate is that you do what the Air Boss tells you. If he isn't saying anything, maintain your horizontal 360 degree circuit route (and don't try any aerobatics). If he's telling you to bring the plane down, kill the engine and go nose down (or whatever you need to do to crash on command), right now! I've seen planes come close to the pits/spectators. It's not fun trying to dodge planes that are wandering on their empty-weight flight. I've done that. (Yeah, high-lift planes with nothing to lift except themselves... slightly crazy flight paths can result.)

The only people allowed on the runway are the flight crew and some media (off-runway but still close), as well as judges. Team members are in the pit area, by the fence (and, with AMA as well as SAE, you do not fly over the pits). Spectators, as I mentioned, are behind that fence.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by EricH

There's a difference between flying and having the ground repel you.

Helicopters (rotary-wing aircraft) are generally more maneuverable than airplanes (fixed-wing aircraft). This allows them to fly into tighter spaces than almost any airplane. There is no comparison between the maneuverability of a 45 kg helo that is designed to fly at 45 kg (little/no payload) and that of a 10-20 lb plane that's carrying up to 4x its own weight, and is rather underpowered. The helo will win a maneuverability contest every time given that both pilots know what they're doing.

Actually, ours was a 45 kg fixed-wing aircraft (something like 35 kg empty, plus 10 kg tested payload¹). Some of the other competitors used helicopters; ours was the largest plane.

The one that crashed was on the small side—probably around 5 kg. The heaviest aircraft at the event was a Yamaha RMAX helicopter UAV, at 64 kg empty, with probably 20 kg of payload.

The smallest helicopters were intended to actually try to enter buildings (insanity, given their level of sophistication). The medium-sized ones flew right up to windows, and launched remote vehicles in. The big one (the RMAX) hovered and dropped a boom on a cable down to window level, then stuck it through the window. Ours dropped a rover by parachute, which launched a smaller remote vehicle through the window. None of these systems worked very well, and most could not be successfully demonstrated.

¹ I suspect maximum takeoff weight would have been considerably higher, given a long enough runway. We only tested to around 10 kg payload, because that's all we really needed, and because the straight portion of our testing runway was 260 m long (and uphill), and we needed to be able to reject a takeoff with moderate ease, as well as land there with payload onboard (in case of a release failure). Given time to accelerate down the 1 100 m runway at the competition, we likely would have been able to lift much more. The problem would have been maximum landing weight—taking off at 80 kg gross weight might have been feasible, but landing would have required jettisoning a large portion of that.

[EricH]

Actually, Tristan, I think a year or so after that, teams had gotten to the point where they changed the challenge--they skipped the "deliver" portion and had everyone focus on the "in the building" portion. (I'd have to ask the SDSM&T UAV team's veterans to be sure of what they're doing this year.) I know SDSM&T's team was one of the mid-size choppers, dropping a quadrotor.

When SAE does the Aero Design competition, they like to adhere to the AMA safety code at least to some extent. Nothing over 55lb (without a waiver, which SAE doesn't allow in competition), no flying over pits, no metal props, nothing beyond the safety line except flight crew/event staff. AMA's safety rule is nothing outdoors closer than 25' to anybody except the pilot and helpers on the flight line. (Indoors... well, usually the indoor flyers are much lighter and much less powerful than the outdoor birds.)

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by EricH

Actually, Tristan, I think a year or so after that, teams had gotten to the point where they changed the challenge--they skipped the "deliver" portion and had everyone focus on the "in the building" portion. (I'd have to ask the SDSM&T UAV team's veterans to be sure of what they're doing this year.) I know SDSM&T's team was one of the mid-size choppers, dropping a quadrotor.

I remember seeing SDSMT's system in action.

The 2008 IARC represented eight straight years of trying the same thing, with the prize money building up every time, but nobody succeeding. They announced early that year that it would be the last of that challenge, and that the prize money ($80 000 by that point) would be distributed by the judges if nobody succeeded outright. Georgia Tech came closest to a complete system with its RMAX, but failed (as did others). With that, they put an end to the outdoor challenge and split the prize money.

The year after (at which point I wasn't involved), it was mostly quadrotors in a school gym in Puerto Rico. Not quite so much fun, all things considered—in fact, much more like the scale of CARD, except autonomous.

Originally Posted by EricH

When SAE does the Aero Design competition, they like to adhere to the AMA safety code at least to some extent. Nothing over 55lb (without a waiver, which SAE doesn't allow in competition), no flying over pits, no metal props, nothing beyond the safety line except flight crew/event staff. AMA's safety rule is nothing outdoors closer than 25' to anybody except the pilot and helpers on the flight line. (Indoors... well, usually the indoor flyers are much lighter and much less powerful than the outdoor birds.)

Ours wasn't legally a model plane. It carried a Transport Canada special flight operations certificate, and as such was limited by a set of binding agreements (rather than the voluntary AMA rules). We submitted design documents, and were approved for flight as a UAV under the Canadian Aviation Regulations in certain conditions and certain areas. When operating in Canada, we imposed a 30 m horizontal clearance requirement between inhabited structures and vehicles, and were not to overfly spectators (excluding support personnel).

When operating in the U.S., the competitors were guests of the Department of Defense at Fort Benning, and as such, were authorized to use military airspace for the purposes of the event. The event's own rules were in force, and they were somewhat less prescriptive.

(There have been longstanding issues with getting approval to fly large UAVs in the United States for non-military purposes. The equivalent to the SFOC is much more complicated, and among American teams, this may have driven all but the best-organized one to use modified R/C helicopters and planes.)

[Siri]

Originally Posted by EricH

...and provided that the bumper zone requirements were met...

...and provided that all size restrictions were met (including the absolute height this year)...

This is actually an interesting (albeit irrelevant) point. In response to a Q&A regarding the definitions of "tall" and "height", the GDC explained that "The vertical measurement is always in relation to the Robot", emphasis mine.

R29 also explains "Bumpers must be located entirely within the Bumper Zone when the Robot is standing normally on a flat floor", emphasis mine. (The Blue Box on R01-2 discusses the definition of "flat floor" but not the limitations of "standing": "The carpet, the Bridge surfaces, and Keys are considered the flat floors – and thus are the reference planes for the Bumper Zone requirements. A Robot in a transitory state of crossing onto/off of a Bridge or Barrier is not considered to be on a flat floor.)

As such, it seems that a <=60"/84" tall (with respect to itself) flying robot whose legal bumpers are fully within the bumper zone when it stands (presumably meaning 'in physical contact with') a Flat Floor would pass both the bumper and height requirements.

On the other hand, as a referee, I'd like to remind my inspector pals (not that they need reminding), that I would really like to avoid a 60", 154lb robot flying at my head.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Interesting. The International Aerial Robotics Competition (in 2007 and 2008, at least) took a different approach to safety.

Competitors were permitted to fly in much closer proximity to buildings, people and other equipment, because the challenge involved identifying and delivering payloads into a building. Nevertheless, there were certain areas designated as a restricted, and only event staff and vehicle crews were allowed in.

All vehicles were required to be "rendered ballistic" upon command, for safety. Is that what SAE Aero Design mandates?

Rendered ballistic seems dangerous, Design/Build/Fly requires full up elevator, right rudder and right aileron and throttle off in the event of a loss of signal. That way the airplane goes into a spin, and having seen a couple even if it failsafed over your head you would have time to get out of the way.

Spectators are lined up along one edge of the flightline about 100 feet back, except for the pilot, observer, and contest officials. This was not always the case. In particular, this video. (mild language, but these people are inches away from getting smashed by an r/c plane)

I think it would be very tough to fly slow enough with all of the essential mass you need to meet the definition of an FRC ROBOT. It would be an interesting conceptual design though... likely a biplane (might as well do a triplane for kicks) to get remotely close to the slow flight you'd need to stay in the field. It would be a very ugly airplane.

[Gary Dillard]

Given the dynamics of the ramp, I'll venture that we'll see quite a few flying robots this year.

Or did you mean "intentionally flying"?

[Rogue Leader]

Originally Posted by Gary Dillard

Given the dynamics of the ramp, I'll venture that we'll see quite a few flying robots this year.

Or did you mean "intentionally flying"?

Intentionally flying.

[Tytus Gerrish]

stunt idea

[Gary Dillard]

Originally Posted by Tytus Gerrish

stunt idea

As if Tytus hasn't already tried it. Just waitin' for the video.

[tsakshaug]

only if you can do this: http://youtu.be/YQIMGV5vtd4
the fun begins at about 30 sec