BVLOS approved in Az for Airobotics

[Dougcjohn]

Great Article, it was only a matter of time... electronics slowly developing into fully autonomous, no-pilot, BVLOS flight missions.

Airobotics has obtained a BVLOS waiver for BVLOS, Over Humans, and Observer Not required to be in line of sight. The drone doesn't even need to be initially located in the same location as flight monitor / pilot. This is an Israeli company that has loose ties with EverySight whom makes augmented reality systems and recently entered the USA with Bicycle Racing HUD glasses called the Raptor and is the child company of the Israeli Elbit Systems, the company that designs and manufactures pretty much 100% of the NATO Military HUD systems for Aviation and Navel: Jets, Heli, Bombers, Drones, Submarine Drones, etc.

This company has been coming on extremely strong Internationally, it's now made it's way into the USA market.
Airobotics Receives Unique FAA Waiver for Arizona Drone Flights
Per the article; State & Local Govt are encouraged and looking forward to work with BVLOS Drones.

Airbotics Goal: provide drones without the need of pilot... truly fully autonomous computerized flight missions that can be located elsewhere from the Flight HQ by providing self-contained Drone Habitats. Similar technology to a few military BVLOS units, but several jumps forward into the autonomous technology and remote flight centers (developed several aspects of technology for DOD for years). This advanced BVLOS Computerized Autonomous format not in USA yet... but has been successfully deployed in other countries; is well on it's way into USA market. Interestedly, one of their positive points "Marketed' is that it provides a safer, on-demand and higher reliability compared to Sub-Contracted Drone Pilots.

For a quick intro, play the video clip at the Airobotics Website's Main page.
Automated Industrial Drones | Airobotics

 

[Dougcjohn]

Thought this above article would encourage some BVLOS discussions since that's often a discussion and generally towards the rational it won't be accepted, and often based on Govt resistance. This article clearly indicates large companies are at work behind the scenes in both development and dinning the politicians. Within the article it was indicated that State & Govt are interested & encourage BVLOS development.

I found this article intriguing, and a little disturbing at the same time.
If you've read or traveled to various Countries of instability that have diamond mines, Oil or other protected operations. You know how the security teams are very well compensated. The autonomous multiple drone self-contained habitats were originally developed for this environment, and the technology has spread into other drone facets.

 

[record.play.rewind]

They have been around for a while, and there is also a new drone from DJI that is soon to come out similar to it.

 

[Dougcjohn]

They have been around for a while, and there is also a new drone from DJI that is soon to come out similar to it.

Yep... around apx 10 years. They developed drones for target practice that tied into their HUD systems. Obtained development contracts for companies needing high security and they've continued developing... and now touching USA businesses.

DJI is experimenting with many developments. The Airobotics nitch is the networked self-contained habitats. To be left on-site and controlled form distant locations. Fascinating in many ways!

 

[Dougcjohn]

Personally, I find the habitat very SciFi... and the drone model shown is not their big new version.

 

[Dougcjohn]

I question the precedence in USA, as this develops... the technology increases, more companies enter the BVLOS market.
A short time back it was considered, "Never happen"... so the increase in technology isn't unrealistic.

 

[Dougcjohn]

To expand on this... as already in the works behind the scenes....

The New Year's Eve event was also an indicator of Autonomous BVLOS.... indirectly, suggestive, assumed.
It was a bit humorous how the media was speaking singular "drone", when on the table sat a M210RTK and Mavic 2 Ent. From my chatter channels, there were multiple drones being planned... later pulled due to weather. The NYPD has an inventory of M210's, which is becoming the standard PD inventory across the country. My little suburb town recently sent the Chief and 1 Officer to SAR & Tactical training and added 2 - M210's to their limited budgeted force.

The other variable was the use of RTK on these PD crafts. If you've looked, the RTK options add a big expense to the platform. Not to mention the Network Base units & Rover units scattered around town on top of buildings, stadiums, etc. The purpose of RTK is to obtain centimeter accuracy (2-5 cm). It was suggested a M210RTK was going to be tethered, why tether an expensive RTK unit when a standard M210 Dual Gimbal will provide what's needed. The RTK modules mount on the craft, can quickly be removed or installed and isn't dedicated to a single M210, it can be moved. If possibility to bounce a tethered craft off building, why install the RTK module. They're not positioning the craft near a building, so the standard GPS positioning would provide ample position hold for their intended locations.

If you're not performing survey mapping, geo, construction 3D overlays, what is the use of RTK flying "Visually" in a large city. The range wouldn't be extreme due to visual limitations of the all the structures. You don't need RTK to visually fly around buildings, it's not the RTK that will prevent building strikes when "Manually" flying, it's avoidance sensors. The RTK would be used to avoid autonomous flight paths near structures.

My assumption is fully autonomous BVLOS operations from mobile HQ units or Central HQ centers. One example, the company that develops UgCS software also develops Centrally managed software / consoles that can monitor and control 100's of Drones at one desk autonomously.

It wouldn't surprise me to read in 1-2 years this development being tested... and presented by the media as brand new technology recently obtained since the public doesn't realize how many years it takes to develop & setup the RTK network and visual cameras. I'd say BVLOS is already underway in development of various govt & PD's.

 

[PatR]

I question the precedence in USA, as this develops... the technology increases, more companies enter the BVLOS market.

There is no precedence in this. The first BVLOS drone operations in U.S. airspace were conducted by our military back in 2004 or so. The first commercial BVLOS, fully autonomous ops were performed by Insitu Inc. with the Scan Eagle around 2012, and shortly thereafter joined by Aerovironment. Both continue to this day with pipeline and wildlife surveys. Since that time Insitu has performed BVLOS railroad inspections for BNSF, joined wildfire operations in the state of Washington for long duration flights to target hotspots and guide aerial tankers, and performed several emergency SAR operations. They were also instrumental in the set up of The University of North Dakota’s drone program.

 

[PatR]

DCJ,

Regarding the C and C of multiple drones from a single console, Boeing developed and demonstrated this about 5 or 6 years ago and took it a step further by placing that command and control center inside a dedicated, very large manned aircraft equipped to make use of satellite communications for both payload and control transmission. The design was not limited to a single drone type or maker. Already in existence are drone command centers (ground stations) that can assume control of pretty much any civilian drone along with many higher level types.

 

[Dougcjohn]

There is no precedence in this. The first BVLOS drone operations in U.S. airspace were conducted by our military back in 2004 or so. The first commercial BVLOS, fully autonomous ops were performed by Insitu Inc. with the Scan Eagle around 2012, and shortly thereafter joined by Aerovironment. Both continue to this day with pipeline and wildlife surveys. Since that time Insitu has performed BVLOS railroad inspections for BNSF, joined wildfire operations in the state of Washington for long duration flights to target hotspots and guide aerial tankers, and performed several emergency SAR operations. They were also instrumental in the set up of The University of North Dakota’s drone program.

Very interesting, I knew about the Military...actually thought that started more around 2000, their core testing was in the 90's. The Insitu Inc was a Boeing subdivision developed by Govt / Military for Reconnaissance on low altitude, long distance operations. Didn't realize until a quick read, this spread over to fitting Government regulated environments using the Scan Eagle 1 & 2 seriesl Later adopted by large Commercial businesses that held some association with Govermental agencies: ie railroad.

All these Govt / Military sponsored larger scale BVLOS UAV's have been small scale combustion aircraft, maintained and prepared for operations similar to manned aircraft. Have any of these included sUAV, battery powered more designed like small drones, launched from unmanned remote sites similar to the Airobotics's Habitats.

The big UAV's combustion powered have always been awesome in design, range and capabilities. I informally placed these into the small aircraft / combustion large UAV more than the sUAV both in design & operations. My "precedence" question was more considering the sUAV battery powered drones working for commercial businesses not directly associated, funded or regulated by Government. I felt that was breaking out of the combustion UAV originally designed for long range missions originally developed by the Government for government purposes. I'm not sure of many successful attempts of sUAV external to Govt associated businesses. That may open more channels for other sUAV class of businesses to push the BVLOS.

The Univ ND Drone program, sounds interesting. Were there a lot of achievements spawned from this program or instrumental to some of the current USA developers? This didn't spawn that other so called University you discussed in past that has poorly trained or a superior attitude... I recall parade event interrupted by a Univ Group.

 

[Dougcjohn]

DCJ,

Regarding the C and C of multiple drones from a single console, Boeing developed and demonstrated this about 5 or 6 years ago and took it a step further by placing that command and control center inside a dedicated, very large manned aircraft equipped to make use of satellite communications for both payload and control transmission. The design was not limited to a single drone type or maker. Already in existence are drone command centers (ground stations) that can assume control of pretty much any civilian drone along with many higher level types.

This was a major accomplishment for them too, it was more Govt / Military developed. You're correct, this was a large operation and continues to develop... was the airborne version basically using a converted AWACS. Didn't I read somewhere that this was also able assume control / monitoring of manned long range missions if needed... more of manned op "passing control" for periods of time of operation. On a scale this is far superior to what I'm referencing, although requires a lot of operators at the consoles. The UgCS software is more scaled for single remote operator managing multiple clustered / nested operations.

 

[PatR]

Regarding early “small” electric BVLOS civilian operations; Aerovironment used their fixed wing electric Puma to participate in commercial contract trials in Alaska. As you know, the Puma was designed for use in primitive and remote locations utilizing relatively low skilled operators. Hand launched aircraft like Raven and Puma can be used anywhere. All of the initial commercial sUAS contracts were performed under direct FAA supervision with their performance and operational protocols used by the FAA as “Pathfinder” data to establish later development standards for later widespread BVLOS implementation. Other civilian drone BVLOS applications included long range surveillance/inspection of Sunoco oil transmission assets. Similar activities have been taking place with oil fields and mines in Australia, while some other applications have been in play in Europe for several years, but those have been under government control.

Your reference to BVLOS U.S. drone ops initiating in the year 2000 is probably more accurate than my reference to the year 2004 or 2005. I used information from direct observations made after my entry to the military drone world as reference. I was not involved in those activities prior to 2005.

The Boeing multiple UAV console was indeed an AWACS type aircraft and hinted at manned aircraft ops as well. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to participate in a tour of a mobile mock up and sit at a console in the mock up. It filled a 53’ semi trailer and was quite impressive, as was the ability to launch and control different types of drones operating anywhere in the world while you are airborne. Each “station” provided a single operator multiple simultaneous aircraft capability. Bear in mind a lot of effort has been put into development of command and control equipment that can assume control of any civilian drone currently on the market. Those efforts are not connected with multiple aircraft operations from a single console or by a single operator. The single operator, multiple aircraft concept is still illegal under current FAA regulations but having the ability to disrupt civilian drone operations by usurping command of the aircraft doesn't fall under any of the current FAA regs that I'm aware of. Some may find it interesting that foundational information that led to some of this stuff was obtained from tests using the 3DR Iris and Solo. Those little transmitters had a heck of a lot more capability than anyone thought they could have. Once the code used for various flight controllers is broken it's relatively easy to deal with, and most all of them are using 2.4 and 5.8MHz frequencies for C2 functions.

The various university courses have been, at least from my perspective, used to provide educations to interested students in drone technologies and operations, providing a new source of employee candidates to the private sector that are already focused on remote aircraft development. Obstacle and aircraft avoidance technology has benefited immensely from this area. A few collegiate institutions have been more focused in developing study groups to generate information our government will and has used for implementing drone regulations. All of those groups are supported by or partnered with one or more aerospace firms involved with UAV development/production/operation, along with companies involved with avionics and communications systems.

The following is conjecture but I feel patterns established by what has gone before combined with new, as yet to be defined drone regulations, allows for reasonable assessment.

That Aerobotics has been granted BVLOS permission is indicative that our corporate aerospace sector is now prepared to initiate BVLOS operations with their products. We might anticipate that detailed regulations and system/aircraft certification standards for BVLOS operations will be published shortly. What's interesting is that an Israeli company is willing to let their equipment become a "test case", however, this has occurred before with some military hardware.

It should not be surprising that a firm such as Aerobotics has been granted qualification, especially considering Arizona was noted, for BVLOS operations, even when using a multirotor, as Aerobotics is most certainly closely associated with drone development under Israeli government supervision. Arizona is home of the Yuma Proving Grounds. The Israeli's have been leaders in UAV development from the beginning, with offshoots of their efforts part of our military's use of UAV surveillance technology as the Pioneer, Hunter, and IGNAT were not entirely "home grown" system designs. Israeli government support and oversight led to rapid development of reliable UAV platforms while the establishing outstanding operational protocols covering training, maintenance, operation, and system improvement. These protocols are largely shared by our own government and will be required of anyone that desires to operate BVLOS.

 

[Dougcjohn]

Now that's an interesting read and a great collective of the historical associations of the various tangents in developing UAV and BVLOS technologies. Few actually appreciate the history or realize the huge developments within remote control of aircraft and the degree the government and the companies spawned out of govt relationships have contributed to drone technology and the current capabilities within the "labs" of these companies; a lot is just Star Wars amazing: nano GPS, AntiJam GPS, Orbital Capable Drones, Swarm / Hive technologies, drone jamming & drone control and onward... many just hints of their directions, and all interrelated to military industry that etches over to the civilian markets. Various Fed / Military articles I read just flow with new technologies out on the limits of vision. Pretty much all of the new technology is focused on BVLOS or counter measures. Back in the day... way back; one of my Generals used to comment "don't make it meet our needs, make it meet the other sides unknown needs and you can scale it to fit current needs". His way of suggesting wide vision & adaptation to growth in technology.

Interestingly, the developmental motivation of UAV initiated from the manned crafts which opened the creative minds leading more towards focused UAV development. Wasn't the initial radio controlled development parallel with the development of NASA. While recruiting Air Force or Navy pilots to volunteer for a new space program; the test platforms being dropped form planes were all radio controlled, which was borrowed/captured/purchased technologies from Germany's early science in radio waves and crude avionic controls for planes and rockets. It's interesting the RC development actually started in BVLOS first on the large scale long before VLOS was even considered for hobbyist.

I'd agree, Airobotics is probably an ideal candidate for permissions on BVLOS. You bring up a great point on the Yuma Proving grounds, Airobotics has been in that environment for years in both UAV and it's parent company Israeli Elbit Systems (IES) in HUD and avionic computer controls. Permitting their equipment to a "test case"; there's probably more to it than we're privy to know that will reap both Airobotics and US Govt additional benefit. Like a previous discussion... watch the left hand, while the right signs the contracts. Their recent packages in developing the F22, F35 helmet takes electronics and HUD to a new limit and at a cost of $300,000 to 400,000 each, that's an expensive bit of technology for head gear and huge profits for IES and Airobotics. Not directly part of this discussion, but related... to lightly skim the subject; The US investment in Israeli companies is massive and I question if the politicians realize the impact to ourselves when shouting defiance and not realizing the technology compromised.

Back on the core subject of BVLOS;
As the BVLOS develops more in the commercial market, and other specialized companies enter the BVLOS market it will begin to encroach into several facets of sUAV services, and that's when we'll see more blending of BVLOS and current RC operated drone work. A few examples foreseen to be quickly adapted; cellular, high voltage towers, wind turbine, hydro plant inspections, security parameter inspections, harbor / dock inspections, construction, wildlife monitoring, etc. Example: Tower related, place habitats on every 3rd or 4th tower and they perform preprogramed inspections dependent on weather being monitored if the drone is launched. No need for Drone operator to hike or ATV up the trails to inspect a group of towers for a week. The recent CA fires, they've indicated the power line towers were in need of inspection, manned operations were far behind and a too many regulations to permit drone service inspections.

Basically any drone operation that has a repeatable operation will soon be threatened by a company that can provide a fully autonomous, unattended cluster of drones. I really see security within cities becoming a major player in autonomous drones.... yes, it'll require changes or adaptation in current FAA rules, but it'll be driven by Govt not private sector so it'll evolve as needed. In post #7 above, introduced comments on the progression of building GPS RTK into a cities infrastructure. Many cities are beginning this project but few are discussing the purpose. Expand on that infrastructure with clusters of drone habitats, networking all the existing video monitors, add a drone command center based on proven military sUAV control centers and a attached dispatch center. The total economic cost to a city budget to have 100's of additional officers is going to be overwhelming in the near future, when the primary need is to monitor and dispatch officers as needed. The actual time an officer spends attending to incidents is minimal compared to their time driving around monitoring / observing. Use the physical presence more efficiently, dispatch moves officers more direct point to point... again more military style dispatch style, direct. I personally feel this has been underway for some time, the development and technology has been rapid and the GPS grids being setup within cities doesn't have much cost justification without security as the primary factor.

The primary sUAV service that I don't see being threatened by autonomous services is probably the largest... the photographic drone: news media and independent photography services. The secondary sUAV services least threatened are operations that are one time or infrequent annual operations: Fire evaluations, SAR, Agriculture field work, cinema productions, etc.

 

[PatR]

Regarding municipal drone use, I can easily see autonomous launch and recovery stations becoming co-located with currently deployed Shot Spotter equipment. To quickly respond to a need to locate a shooter, or victims, in the metropolitan environment makes too much sense.

Your mention of the general and his statement caused me to remember a quip heard all to often related to planning around fighting the last war instead of the next one, something we have consistently done. You might have finally encountered a forward thinking general[emoji106]. I’m guessing it had to be at least a 3 star as 1 stars have concerns about rocking the boat. Sort of like how a newly commissioned butter bar initially functions[emoji6]

Thinking more about BVLOS, I have concerns about how the implementation of such activities on a large scale might cause us more harm than good. Us being the under capitalized, zero to 5 employee business, and low to medium level Pro/Am operators. There should always be a place for them performing “one off” operations but range, duration, and payload capabilities will remain a severely limiting factor, even in BVLOS ops. This would likely remain a factor even with DJI systems using advanced payloads. They still employ a battery for power and are limited in the number of payloads that could operate simultaneously. What I’ll call “heavy iron” can and do carry numerous payloads that can operate simultaneously, collecting immense amounts of data for different purposes, and do so over long duration flights. Anyone that can fly a single mission covering an area of 100 square miles or more at a time collecting map, crop, road inspection, wild fire spotting, forest health, sigint, population surveillance, and various thermal source data at the same time for distribution to multiple customers having diverse interests will command priority over us. Multirotors simply cannot compete, at least as ling as they retain the power source they do now. The power supply will have to become a hybrid or fuel cell to have any chance of obtaining being viable. With a few exceptions, fixed and rotary wing are better platforms. Where remote farming operations are with RC is concerned, fixed wing has been the platform of choice for crop and beneficial larvae seeding and insect damage inspections since the late 90’s. It’s only in small scale farming that multirotors can be successful because of there inherent limitations.

My thoughts see us becoming further restricted with altitude limitations and saddled with unaffordable equipment certification requirements. Almost assured will be advanced knowledge and testing standards, which may well require demonstrated ability. “Heavy iron”, owned and operated by large corporate and municipal players, will likely demand and receive much more in the way of airspace protection than they have now.

The phrase “careful what you wish for, you might get it” is very applicable to BVLOS authorization. For those with the ability to link past and present to predict the future, they might determine that Orwell’s graphic description of a “utopian” society will come to pass, welcomed with open arms by those limited to myopic foresight. I expect further mockery for that but I see no other outcome.

 

[Dougcjohn]

Regarding municipal drone use, I can easily see autonomous launch and recovery stations becoming co-located with currently deployed Shot Spotter equipment. To quickly respond to a need to locate a shooter, or victims, in the metropolitan environment makes too much sense.

Your mention of the general and his statement caused me to remember a quip heard all to often related to planning around fighting the last war instead of the next one, something we have consistently done. You might have finally encountered a forward thinking general[emoji106]. I’m guessing it had to be at least a 3 star as 1 stars have concerns about rocking the boat. Sort of like how a newly commissioned butter bar initially functions[emoji6]

You'd be correct on the stars, I had 1 LtGen, 1 MGen, 1 BGen, 80 Col and 210 LtCol. Came in as Short Stop to fill a Major's NATO Cosmic Desk as TDY due to the lack of Cosmic cleared personel... the 3* & 2* took a shine to me and became one of few Sgt in the Gryphon camp... 1 ring down from JCS E-ring. My Gen's were all guns, crude & nasty to the hilt but outstanding to the Nth! But if they disagreed with a returning teams assessment... after a vocal debrief, we were in route to perform their own eye ball on the ground. It was an absolute blast to have 3 Gens & crop full of F-Birds backing ya up on areas a Sgt didn't normally graze. The 3* really disliked putting a team together and later discovered they lacked the technology or air to complete the task on the Q (quietly & quickly). Unlike most 1*, this guy knew no pain, never stayed behind and expected the same on his watch. Keep in mind... late 70's-80's timeframe and various island hopping activities south. Ironically, jump forward 35 years and I marry Russian/Ukraine.

Back on BVLOS...
I'd agree the BVLOS in the metro will be a concern... a grave concern, but I think economics & politics will eventually qualify the need and receive the grace of the FAA. I also totally agree, those companies receiving BVLOS and Metro clearance will be tightly associated with law enforcement, ICE, and DHS in the initial years.

You're presenting more of a Tactical BVLOS visionary, that's an interesting & alarming tangent that I'm sure will eventually be introduced after they prove the worth of observation & monitoring.

Your thought on energy & power I fully agree, current Lipo energy cells won't meet the requirements. I too feel the utilization of current fuel cell technologies will be incorporated into long range / endurance UAVs. I question if any of the prosumer / retail class will even be considered and the specifications will be met more by smaller scaled military grade. The prosumer class will be excluded so to permit new regs & laws introduced defining separation from the big boys scope of op compared to the prosumer ops will be simplified. I also agree the requirements will be greatly enhanced for the same reasons... limit the participators. But I also feel we'll probably see a new class added: hobby, professional, commercial; with commercial gaining the largest scope of Ops and clearance... good luck any individual will receive commercial.

I was reading on the development of orbital drones, basically multi-station habitat(s) in an orbital station(s) able to be dispatched into atmosphere; the habitats are self charging energy cells. What caliber of UAV isn't mentioned, I guess your suppose to apply assumptions. But when you think about it, long range space modules are the extreme of BVLOS UAV's so considering orbital UAV's isn't to far out to be dismissed. Russia is claiming to be developing on this direction heavily, so l'm confident we've been in the game too.

Another thought on the power cell, if metro habitats are situated around the metro and it's a network nest, these UAV could occupy any habitat, not needed to RTH. A single monitoring task could be rotated seamlessly with 2-3 UAV's, each taking a turn back to the habitat for a cell swap or charge.

I'd agree, BVLOS may be more than we desire but I do think we're headed in this direction. Feels very SciFi now, but go back 10-15 years and look forward at our current UAV growth & technologies. Which has a more unrealistic view, I'd say the 10 year past-forward view because technology was so undeveloped compared to now.

 

[PatR]

With our current technology viewed only 5 years hence as totally antiquated. The tech sector is, IMHO, the only thing that has ever met the definition of a perpetual motion machine. In fact, it may well be more like “Flubber” in generating more momentum than it disperses.

You worked in rarified atmosphere[emoji6]