Hello Fellow Yuneec Pilot!
Join our free Yuneec community and remove this annoying banner!
Sign up

How a sUAS works?

Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
103
Reaction score
38
Age
71
Okay guys, correct me, because I may have this wrong. In essance the aircraft sends signals, of its position(GPS modles), altitude, and battery level via the 2.4 ghz frequency, and the camera feed via the 5.6 ghz frequency to the controler(grond station). The controler sends all flight and camera function sgnals to the aircraft. All of the software to make this happen is in the controler, or is some of the software also in the aircraft? If I'm right and all of the software is in the controler, wouldn't it jut be a matter of upgrading the controler software to get what you need?
 
If I'm right and all of the software is in the controler, wouldn't it jut be a matter of upgrading the controler software to get what you need?
No, that's not the way it works. Both the camera and the drone have their own firmware. Think of it as the controller is telling the camera (or drone) what you want to do. The firmware in the camera (or drone) then uses it's firmware to figure out how to do it, and sends the final instructions to the hardware.
To clarify a little:
The controller sends all aircraft (and gimbal manual pitch and yaw) functions to the aircraft mainboard via the 2.4 Ghz signal.
It sends camera functions directly to the camera main processor using the 5.8Ghz signal. (via the camera WiFi board, of course).
The automatic gimbal control (stabilization) is in the camera's gimbal control board, and requires no signal input from the controller.
 
No, that's not the way it works. Both the camera and the drone have their own firmware. Think of it as the controller is telling the camera (or drone) what you want to do. The firmware in the camera (or drone) then uses it's firmware to figure out how to do it, and sends the final instructions to the hardware.
To clarify a little:
The controller sends all aircraft (and gimbal manual pitch and yaw) functions to the aircraft mainboard via the 2.4 Ghz signal.
It sends camera functions directly to the camera main processor using the 5.8Ghz signal. (via the camera WiFi board, of course).
The automatic gimbal control (stabilization) is in the camera's gimbal control board, and requires no signal input from the controller.
Okay, so then tou'd have to upgrade
No, that's not the way it works. Both the camera and the drone have their own firmware. Think of it as the controller is telling the camera (or drone) what you want to do. The firmware in the camera (or drone) then uses it's firmware to figure out how to do it, and sends the final instructions to the hardware.
To clarify a little:
The controller sends all aircraft (and gimbal manual pitch and yaw) functions to the aircraft mainboard via the 2.4 Ghz signal.
It sends camera functions directly to the camera main processor using the 5.8Ghz signal. (via the camera WiFi board, of course).
The automatic gimbal control (stabilization) is in the camera's gimbal control board, and requires no signal input from the controller.
okay, so you'd have to upgrade both. Still just a matter of the geeks doing their job.
 
For the automated portion of operations, yes, the “geeks” need to be doing their jobs. To actually “pilot” and fly an sUAS, the “geeks” need to nothing as the pilot, as opposed to an operator, provides all the control input necessary to stabilize and guide the aircraft.

Bear in mind that an sUAS does not require flight plans, GPS, live telemetry, or cameras to fly. For all intents and purposes those are “accessories” added to enhance the flying experience or to provide features making it easier to navigate or execute an action.

The primary purpose of the flight controller module is to stabilize an extremely unstable airframe/power plant design to a level where the operator can, with confidence, send directional control commands via a radio transmitter to successfully fly the aircraft. There is no need for two way radio communications when flying a “bare bones” type multirotor as the aircraft is under constant manual control of the operator, where the operator is at all times establishing the movement and position of the aircraft.

We should understand that sUAS stands for small, unmanned aerial system, weighing less than 55lbs. Under that definition any and every small radio, remotely controlled aircraft is an sUAS as all the associated components, including the operator, comprise a “system”. Prior to the creation of auto pilots those participating in RC aviation had to learn how to fly an aircraft, how, using visual cues, to determine what control inputs were necessary and when to provide them in order to successfully fly the aircraft. They had to learn the basics of aerodynamics in order to understand the relationship between flight surfaces and their function, and to have some understanding of the forces of flight. Those people piloted their aircraft, and a great many still do in flying without an auto pilot. The majority of multirotor flyers are operators, not pilots, as without an auto pilot they could not successfully fly an RC aircraft.

Lacking the stabilizing influence of an automated flight controller, most people would crash their multirotors within seconds of lift off. Few have the skills necessary to adjust motor speeds fast enough to maintain level flight. Just the act of hovering requires hundreds of control input/response/sensor communication cycles per second. That’s part of the reason multirotor ESC’s function at 400Hz.
 
Last edited:
It's seems obvious there are those who lack some or all the above.???
I knew someone was talking behind my back ? .

I am not paranoid! I just know people are always talking about me when I'm not around?.

?????????
 
Over here we say " your ears are burning"
I just couldn’t resist responding to the Brains, Eyes, and Common Sense.

Sure wish we had some of that heading the rule making committees in the FAA. Firmware could possibly allow our aircraft to be Standard RID compliant, but our controllers will be the downfall as they have no cellular capability thus allowing the internet connection to an RID USS.
 
My best guess sees a need for cellular hardware to be added to both the aircraft and ground stations to become compliant. Systems using cell phones for control functions would be easily adaptable but those using dedicated ground stations not without extensive modification.
 
I just couldn’t resist responding to the Brains, Eyes, and Common Sense.

Sure wish we had some of that heading the rule making committees in the FAA. Firmware could possibly allow our aircraft to be Standard RID compliant, but our controllers will be the downfall as they have no cellular capability thus allowing the internet connection to an RID USS.

If my H plus is able to sends its hight/speed/distance and possible it's position shurley it's possible to connect a small unit to the transmitter to resent the info to the powers to bee? It could even be possible to connect this unit to our mobile phones via hotspot.Just saying ?
Cheers.
Mike
 
If my H plus is able to sends its hight/speed/distance and possible it's position shurley it's possible to connect a small unit to the transmitter to resent the info to the powers to bee? It could even be possible to connect this unit to our mobile phones via hotspot.Just saying ?
Cheers.
Mike
The WiFi is in use for the video feed, so there would have to be a USB serial interface made to connect with the cell phone to do the internet connection to the USS.

I am not crazy over Joe Public knowing where I fly, and LEO’s should only need my info if I am breaking the rules.
 
The WiFi is in use for the video feed, so there would have to be a USB serial interface made to connect with the cell phone to do the internet connection to the USS.

I am not crazy over Joe Public knowing where I fly, and LEO’s should only need my info if I am breaking the rules.

I am with you on that. I believe that the telemetry is cent over 2.4Ghz. So all I think we need is to capture this info and resent it via cell phone? While I dont like big brother seeing my every move I do believe that in the quest for safety the drones position should be known by other aircraft.
Cheers.
Mike
 
I have no problem with the aircraft broadcasting its position, altitude, speed, and direction of travel, but position of the controller has nothing to do with safety and invites nut cases to track down operators.

I have great respect for law officers as a general rule, but when they operate like the Genesee County Park Rangers in Michigan that is another story. I do not need for them to have real-time access to me flying my TH Pro, Breeze, or tiny Hubsan.

As much as many feel this is necessary to protect manned aircraft, the biggest proponent of this drive for RID has to do with big business being able to fly BVLOS. I can see some of the BVLOS for inspection of utilities and railways, but that could be accomplished by creating assigned routes and issuance of NOTAMS to inform of flights.

It is the intrusion into the low altitude airspace <=400‘ AGL by delivery drones for Amazon, UPS, FedEx and others of that ilk that this whole package of “safety” initiatives becomes imperative. These deliveries can be achieved with greener vehicles for a lot less money than the drones. A delivery van that runs on batteries is hard to hear until the driver opens or closes a door. A delivery drone big enough to carry packages is going to be one noisy vehicle and much worse than our supposedly noisy camera drones.
 
Two thoughts:

How does it make sense to prohibit flight at an aviation promoting EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association) event just because a particular airfield is out in the boonies, with sketchy if any cellular coverage?

How many UAS vehicles does it take to eliminate just one delivery truck?

For the latter, I see a heck of a lot of overhead, let alone support staff, to make just a handful of aerial deliveries. How much will be needed for just one company-wide operation?

(Ok, three questions.)

Jeff
 
@PatR I'm glad you joined in. I was hoping you would, you always have some thoughtful insights. @Doomeister' you also contribute a lot to this forum, and you picked up on re-sending the info our aircraft are already sending to the ground station. My problem is, here in Northeastern Montana, the only cel towers are along the US highway 2 corridor, and the internet from those is not very reliable.
 
I presume you are referring to the FAA's RID NPRM proposal requiring the broadcast of telemetry and ID data whenever an sUAS was being flown.

I haven't finished reading the entire NPRM yet as I'm saving that labor for the period I'll be recovering from knee surgury, eliminating distractions from the task at hand. From what I have read the FAA has some provisions that may alleviate some of the issue by allowing flight at specific sUAS approved flight areas, (read that as dedicated AMA flying sites) and blind broadcasting of the data stream in areas where cellular coverage is not available. I can't see how the last is going to be found satisfactory though.

An interesting part of this NPRM is the FAA has not established or recommended any particular product or technology manufacturer for the transmission of sUAS data, nor have they established who is going to be receiving it nor the manner the data will be used. In essence they are telling us we will have to do something nobody yet knows how to do or what to do it with. The only thing they have absolutely established is that drone operators are going to be paying for whatever they come up with, lock, stock, and barrel. From my perspective we can't get there from here.
 
In Germany the situation regarding the Remote ID is quite similar, but Telekom and DFS (German ATC) set up a joint venture (Droniq) to provide a solution for how to realise a remote ID system. Currently there are tests running with a hook-on device which will gather flight information independently from the UAS electronics and feed them to ATM. The HOD makes it more simple to add to your UAV (no messing around with different manufacturers), but - as far as I know - it lacks the transmitting of the pilots position and of course will only work if a cell network is available at your flight site. I would guess, similar activities are running in the US, so flight authorities can come up and tell "Hey, that's the equipment you'll need to stay legal, it's not cheap, but it's worth it if you want to stay airborne" ?.
 

New Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
20,955
Messages
241,599
Members
27,285
Latest member
hendrtiz