[Canberrauav] next steps for CanberraUAV
Andrew Tridgell andrew at tridgell.net
Fri Oct 3 12:33:56 EST 2014
Hi All,
At our meeting on Tuesday evening we started a discussion on what is
next for CanberraUAV. There are lots of things we could work on, and
ideas from both inside and outside the team are very welcome.
>From my point of view I'd like to see us take a two pronged approach:
1) develop our own capabilities as a UAV S&R organisation
2) develop our software and documentation to support other groups
around the world to use the technology we have developed to allow
them to be more effective S&R organisations.
The two are complimentary of course, as developing our own capabilities
will tend to improve our software which will help others, but I think we
should have a real focus on making our technology more accessible to
others. We've put together some pretty useful bits of software as part
of our OBC development, but right now the software is largely
undocumented and quite tricky for other groups to use.
There are really three ways in which other groups can benefit from our
work:
1) the work we do on the core ardupilot code benefits lots of people
immediately. We should continue to test and improve the code, with a
focus on features that help for S&R (the terrain following code is a
good example of that).
2) using our image recognition code as a post-flight analysis tool, via
our "geosearch" tool. This is the easiest way for other S&R groups
to use our code, as they just need an aircraft with any camera that
can store images on-board (eg. a point and shoot camera).
3) using our full in-flight recognition system, with real-time image
analysis, comms to the GCS etc. That is what we use ourselves, and
provides a fantastic S&R capability, but is much more complex to
setup and use, which means it needs even more documentation!
Apart from documenting our existing code for these 3 use cases, we
should look at how we want to improve the code.
For the OBC we just needed to find a highly distinctive human-sized
object from 100m altitude. When the OBC was originally conceived this
was an enormous task, but now it should really be considered quite an
easy task. We need to push the capabilities of the system a lot further
if we want to get something truly useful for S&R. In a real S&R
situation you can't rely on lost people wearing bright clothing and
lying out in the open. Instead the search involves looking for tiny
clues in the landscape that may help to locate the lost individual.
I think the new gold standard we should be trying to achieve is to be
able to find something around the size of a shoe over an area of about
10 square kilometres in one hour of searching. Right now our system
would have no chance of doing that, but I think that is the level we
should be trying to achieve if we want the system to save lives.
The justification for "shoe sized object" is that when people are lost
they may leave behind clues in the landscape. They may drop a water
bottle, a backpack, a hat or a jacket. We need to not only find those
objects, but be able to display a high enough resolution image of them
on the GCS that the search coordinator can decide if it is worth sending
out a ground team to investigate.
To achieve that we are going to need much better cameras and much
smarter software. From an altitude of 100m the pixel size of our PtGrey
Chameleon camera is about 10cm at the moment, which is far too large for
finding shoe-sized objects. We could find shoes if we flew much lower,
but then we wouldn't be able to cover large areas.
The good news about this sort of target capability is that it should be
reasonably easy to test at our existing flying field at CMAC. We can
scatter small objects over quite long distances and try to find them
while staying within the flying limits of our field.
Apart from higher resolution and smarter software we can also branch out
in other directions. For example, looking in the near infrared, and
using thermal cameras. NIR cameras should be quite easy to try and not
terribly expensive. Thermal cameras are much more expensive (and low
resolution), but offer huge advantages in real S&R situations.
I think that is enough to get the discussion going, please post your own
ideas! I'll write a separate post on some specific hardware I think we
should get.
Cheers, Tridge
[Canberrauav] next steps for CanberraUAV
Chris Gough christopher.d.gough at gmail.com
Fri Oct 3 13:02:56 EST 2014
Hi Tridge,
I agree with the goal and the "two prongs", but think you missed a 4th way
that other S&R organizations can benefit. Our systems in the broadest sense,
including procedures and processes, could be useful to other organizations too.
That could happen in two ways: first as a reference model for their independant
procedures and processes, and second maybe they could somehow participate
in our processes. For example, imagine we had a tool for lodging hazard
identification reports, and a process for reviewing these reports to drive safety
improvements in our operating procedures. 3rd parties might just adopt our
continuously improving procedures (with their own modifications, etc), or we
might allow/encourage them to submit hazard reports to us to review.
I gues I'm advocating that we think like an aircraft manufacturer, not just an
aircraft operator.
Chris Gough
On 03/10/2014, at 12:33 PM, Andrew Tridgell wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> At our meeting on Tuesday evening we started a discussion on what is
> next for CanberraUAV. There are lots of things we could work on, and
> ideas from both inside and outside the team are very welcome.
>
> From my point of view I'd like to see us take a two pronged approach:
>
> 1) develop our own capabilities as a UAV S&R organisation
>
> 2) develop our software and documentation to support other groups
> around the world to use the technology we have developed to allow
> them to be more effective S&R organisations.
>
> The two are complimentary of course, as developing our own capabilities
> will tend to improve our software which will help others, but I think we
> should have a real focus on making our technology more accessible to
> others. We've put together some pretty useful bits of software as part
> of our OBC development, but right now the software is largely
> undocumented and quite tricky for other groups to use.
>
> There are really three ways in which other groups can benefit from our
> work:
>
> 1) the work we do on the core ardupilot code benefits lots of people
> immediately. We should continue to test and improve the code, with a
> focus on features that help for S&R (the terrain following code is a
> good example of that).
>
> 2) using our image recognition code as a post-flight analysis tool, via
> our "geosearch" tool. This is the easiest way for other S&R groups
> to use our code, as they just need an aircraft with any camera that
> can store images on-board (eg. a point and shoot camera).
>
> 3) using our full in-flight recognition system, with real-time image
> analysis, comms to the GCS etc. That is what we use ourselves, and
> provides a fantastic S&R capability, but is much more complex to
> setup and use, which means it needs even more documentation!
>
> Apart from documenting our existing code for these 3 use cases, we
> should look at how we want to improve the code.
>
> For the OBC we just needed to find a highly distinctive human-sized
> object from 100m altitude. When the OBC was originally conceived this
> was an enormous task, but now it should really be considered quite an
> easy task. We need to push the capabilities of the system a lot further
> if we want to get something truly useful for S&R. In a real S&R
> situation you can't rely on lost people wearing bright clothing and
> lying out in the open. Instead the search involves looking for tiny
> clues in the landscape that may help to locate the lost individual.
>
> I think the new gold standard we should be trying to achieve is to be
> able to find something around the size of a shoe over an area of about
> 10 square kilometres in one hour of searching. Right now our system
> would have no chance of doing that, but I think that is the level we
> should be trying to achieve if we want the system to save lives.
>
> The justification for "shoe sized object" is that when people are lost
> they may leave behind clues in the landscape. They may drop a water
> bottle, a backpack, a hat or a jacket. We need to not only find those
> objects, but be able to display a high enough resolution image of them
> on the GCS that the search coordinator can decide if it is worth sending
> out a ground team to investigate.
>
> To achieve that we are going to need much better cameras and much
> smarter software. From an altitude of 100m the pixel size of our PtGrey
> Chameleon camera is about 10cm at the moment, which is far too large for
> finding shoe-sized objects. We could find shoes if we flew much lower,
> but then we wouldn't be able to cover large areas.
>
> The good news about this sort of target capability is that it should be
> reasonably easy to test at our existing flying field at CMAC. We can
> scatter small objects over quite long distances and try to find them
> while staying within the flying limits of our field.
>
> Apart from higher resolution and smarter software we can also branch out
> in other directions. For example, looking in the near infrared, and
> using thermal cameras. NIR cameras should be quite easy to try and not
> terribly expensive. Thermal cameras are much more expensive (and low
> resolution), but offer huge advantages in real S&R situations.
>
> I think that is enough to get the discussion going, please post your own
> ideas! I'll write a separate post on some specific hardware I think we
> should get.
>
> Cheers, Tridge
[Canberrauav] next steps for CanberraUAV
Andrew Tridgell andrew at tridgell.net
Fri Oct 3 13:09:48 EST 2014
Hi Chris,
> I agree with the goal and the "two prongs", but think you missed a 4th
> way that other S&R organizations can benefit. Our systems in the
> broadest sense, including procedures and processes, could be useful to
> other organizations too.
Good point!
My own focus will tend to be on the technical side (software, cameras,
comms etc), but it would be great if others on the team could work on
the procedures side as well.
Cheers, Tridge
[Canberrauav] next steps for CanberraUAV
Jonathan Parrott parrott.jonathan at gmail.com
Fri Oct 3 19:11:28 EST 2014
I think that's a fantastic margin to set Tridge and it would really
increase the chances of finding someone by magnitudes.
As CUAV, we have done a huge amount of R&D over the past few years and have
a complete package (GCS, aircraft, software) to conduct S&R missions,
albeit we can always do better. We have come to the point where we have
done enough testing to ensure reliability of all systems and find out when
parts start to wear out and human factor issues involved completing a
mission. Taking an aircraft manufacturers perspective on this we are almost
able to write up a servicing timeline for the airframe including all the
components which make up the entire system (GCS, etc) to create an
operating handbook. This would be in conjunction with the procedures and
processes that Chris has eluded to.
>From here we could offer a complete package (aircraft, GCS,
procedures/manuals, software) to anyone who wishes to operate S&R missions.
I believe that this would be a good step forward rather than being a S&R
operator which would be very dependent on locale and availability of
members. So rather we can continue what we do, make it better and
standardise it for other operators to use.
Just my thoughts, please feel free to add your own.
Cheers,
Jono
On 3 October 2014 13:09, Andrew Tridgell wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> > I agree with the goal and the "two prongs", but think you missed a 4th
> > way that other S&R organizations can benefit. Our systems in the
> > broadest sense, including procedures and processes, could be useful to
> > other organizations too.
>
> Good point!
>
> My own focus will tend to be on the technical side (software, cameras,
> comms etc), but it would be great if others on the team could work on
> the procedures side as well.
>
> Cheers, Tridge
>
[Canberrauav] next steps for CanberraUAV
Stephen Dade stephen_dade at hotmail.com
Fri Oct 3 20:06:46 EST 2014
Great ideas Jono.
I’d like our direction to be more of a “whole system” approach, rather than
focussing on one or two subsystems. If we can develop a cheap S&R UAV
system that other organisations can quickly copy and use themselves, we
would have advanced the field significantly.
>From what I’ve seen in my professional life as an Engineer, much of the
effort (and money) is spent on integrating systems in a project. Then there
is training and providing support to the users…
Also important is the documentation! We need to develop (and use) proper
checklists and procedures, as our OBC mission demonstrated.
With that comes a safety management system. Given we are definitely one of
the more well-known civilian UAV groups, we should set an example in having
professional standards to safety (and encourage other to follow our example).
-Stephen
From: Canberrauav [mailto:canberrauav-bounces at canberrauav.org.au]
On Behalf Of Jonathan Parrott
Sent: Friday, 3 October 2014 7:11 PM
To: Andrew Tridgell
Cc: canberrauav at canberrauav.com
Subject: Re: [Canberrauav] next steps for CanberraUAV
I think that's a fantastic margin to set Tridge and it would really
increase the chances of finding someone by magnitudes.
As CUAV, we have done a huge amount of R&D over the past few years and have
a complete package (GCS, aircraft, software) to conduct S&R missions,
albeit we can always do better. We have come to the point where we have
done enough testing to ensure reliability of all systems and find out when
parts start to wear out and human factor issues involved completing a
mission. Taking an aircraft manufacturers perspective on this we are almost
able to write up a servicing timeline for the airframe including all the
components which make up the entire system (GCS, etc) to create an
operating handbook. This would be in conjunction with the procedures and
processes that Chris has eluded to.
>From here we could offer a complete package (aircraft, GCS,
procedures/manuals, software) to anyone who wishes to operate S&R missions.
I believe that this would be a good step forward rather than being a S&R
operator which would be very dependent on locale and availability of
members. So rather we can continue what we do, make it better and
standardise it for other operators to use.
Just my thoughts, please feel free to add your own.
Cheers,
Jono
On 3 October 2014 13:09, Andrew Tridgell wrote:
Hi Chris,
> I agree with the goal and the "two prongs", but think you missed a 4th
> way that other S&R organizations can benefit. Our systems in the
> broadest sense, including procedures and processes, could be useful to
> other organizations too.
Good point!
My own focus will tend to be on the technical side (software, cameras,
comms etc), but it would be great if others on the team could work on
the procedures side as well.
Cheers, Tridge
Copyright 2014 http://canberrauav.org.au/