AT409 Week 12 Report

 

Introduction

On the first week of November, Crew 1 partook in a series of flights and flight operations. The week began with a flight on Monday with Kaleb Gould and Dr. Joseph Hupy leading the field operation and Jeff Hines sorting and post-processing the data. On Tuesday, the entire class met with Measure Ground Control via an online call to discuss our experience using the platform throughout the year. Additionally, on Thursday Kaleb Gould, Jeff Hines, and Zach Miller aided the Purdue Forestry department by capturing live aerial footage of the burn in both RGB and thermal. 

Monday (11/2) – Martell Northern Plots

On Monday, the weather forced one of the weekly flights forward by 3 hours. The surface wind was expected to build over the day to speeds outside the M600 Pros limitations. Per the Federal Aviation Administration's operational rules, it is not advised to operate a drone outside of the manufacturer published operating limitations. Any operation outside of this makes you a test pilot. Since we are not in the business of testing aircraft, we do not fly outside of them.

Per the tradition of these flights, two flights were flown over the Martell Forest Area North end. The two flight plans are shown below. This has been flown over the past 11 weeks

to watch the changing of the leaves, the leaf fall, and to provide data for plant type identification. They NE plot took 25 minutes to fly and the NW plot took. This was done in a survey grid with North – South laps, at 85% side lap and 75% overlap. This contrasts with our traditional 80-by-80 side lap, overlap that we normally fly with. This overlap similarity is important for the data processing. It provides the software more context for pixel matching and there for a more confident image output. The downside to high overlapping is an extended flight times meaning more batteries that are not always available.

 

The third flight for the day was over a residential property located 6 miles north west of the university. This location was a first for us but the mission much the same as when we fly Martell or the Purdue Wildlife Area. The 10-minute mission was flown as a survey mission with passes going south west to north east, in line with the property. The camera was pointed straight down to capture images of the wooded area and adjacent area. This data will be reviewed and used to identify the extent of the invasive Amur Honeysuckle. In addition to this, the imagery will be used to identify property lines for development of an adjacent property. Using UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems) to gather development data like this can save hours of work. From this flight we are able to understand the topography, vegetation, and its density, identify property boundaries without further surveying, and help create projections for construction such as cost, equipment, and labor.

Tuesday (11/3) – Measure Ground Control Call

On Tuesday, all the crews assembled to participate in a Zoom call with a representative from Measure Ground Control to discuss the program and how we have used it this past semester. The class discussed various glitches or crashes that they encountered with the app when out in the field. John Cox, a member of group one, mentioned one such crash that he and Jeff Hines encountered in the field during week 7. Ultimately though, the objective of the meeting was to offer any suggestions or improvements to the design team & discuss our experience utilizing the program. Once refocused, the class was able to provide some valuable feedback, such as implementing a feature for users to allow access to specific admin privileges to any subordinates. There were some features that students wanted to see that, surprisingly, do exist on the program that we as students cannot access. Such features include tracking flight progress among multiple crews or an active calendar that allows for visualization of flights, past and present. At the end of the call, the Measure team thanked us for our time and suggestions.

Thursday (11/5) – Martell Forest Controlled Burn

On Thursday, a small team consisting of Jeff Hines, Kaleb Gould, and Zach Miller went out to Martell forest with the M210 attached with a thermal and RGB camera to capture live footage of a controlled burn. The crew set up in a field south of the main Martell Forest building that is marked below. The operation began a little after 15:00 EST with Kaleb acting as PIC. The flight strategy consisted of orbiting the burn area and recording our footage of the fire developing as well as monitoring the temperatures via the thermal camera. Jeff and Zach acted as visual observers (VOs) while the aircraft was airborne as well as communicated with the staff and students that were leading the controlled burn. 

Flight Zone

The team had some minor difficulties identifying the aircraft when flying near clouds of smoke. That said, Kaleb was fully aware of the aircraft’s position as he was utilizing the aircraft’s first-person view (FPV) thermal camera. A photo of the thermal view of the forest is included below. The VOs communicated with Kaleb their difficulties and extra care was placed to avoid smoke clouds for the rest of the operation. Additionally, Kaleb found that the thermal camera had an upper limit of about 353°F as no object exceeded that temperature despite reaching the number a multitude of times. 

 

Thermal View

The burn continued according to standard, expected operations. The crew brought the M210 in twice to replace batteries, but as the aircraft was returning for the third set of batteries, Kaleb noticed that the burn crew was moving to a nearby plot and starting another burn. We quickly replaced the batteries and sent the aircraft to the second plot to continue recording footage. The second plot was much smaller than the first, so it only took one set of batteries to capture the entirety of the controlled burn. After the second plot finished burning, Kaleb brought the aircraft back down and everyone packed up the equipment. Before leaving though, we had a quick meeting with the fire crew to discuss what was captured, when they would receive this data, and any significant details that we picked out during our flight – in particular a falling tree that we were able to capture.

AT409 Week 11 Report

 

Introduction-

This week flight crew 1 partook in a maintenance on the Bramor PPx platform, attempted to conduct a test flight of the repaired aircraft, and made plans for a large-scale flight operation to be conducted the following week. 

Overview-

Tuesday (11/10) - Bramor PPx Repair and Flight Test:

As stated in previous reports, the classes Bramor PPx aircraft had been out of service due to a malfunctioning servo which controlled the parachute hatch. In summary the servo had suffered an over voltage failure which burned a hole through the outer casing of the servo and damaging the internal components rendering the servo inoperable.  The repair process had been delayed several times due to poor customer service on the part of the manufacturer; involving delays in obtaining a replacement servo as well as poorly defined maintenance procedures to replacing and servicing the servo once it had arrived. Once the replacement servo arrived it was discovered that the new servo mounting arms did not fit in the aircraft. The manufacturers recommendation was to force the new servo into place, this repair was done, albeit to the flight crews' apprehension. It was also discovered earlier that the aircraft needed to be fully assembled in order to step down the voltage to the servo so that the same failure does not occur again.  This process must be done in order to service the parachute hatch servo; John has made note of this for use in improved maintenance procedures later. Once this repair was completed and the required maintenance log entry had been made, flight crew 1 made ready to take the bramor out to the Martell forest area for a test flight. 

The test flight was conducted with William Weldon acting as remote PIC, Kaleb Gould as FO, John Cox as SO, and Jeff Hines acting as an additional VO. The primary focus of the flight test was to check the functionality of the newly installed parachute hatch servo. The flight was to take place at the northern edge of the Martel forest area, at an altitude of ~120m as to avoid another flight crew flying a mission with the M600. William as PIC made the call to scrub the flight due to worsening weather conditions with a worsening forecast. While the servo did work in the lab while it was on the ground it is important to note that the aircraft cannot be returned to service without a test flight being performed. The test flight has been postponed to a later date pending weather conditions. 

Monday/On-going: Martel Forest Large Scale Operation:

As this semester approaches its end and the weather conditions become increasingly unfavorable the push to get in as many flights as possible is upon us. To this end, Kaleb started organizing a large-scale flight operation to take place Friday/Saturday next week over the Martel forest area. The goal of the operation will be to map the entirety of the forest. This will be accomplished by using two flight teams, one flying the Bramor over the northern half of the forest while a second flight team operating the M600 will cover the southern half of the forest. The operation will consist of 8 flights with 3 flown by the Bramor and 5 by the M600. The Bramor team will consist of Kaleb, Zach, and Willaim; and the M600 team will be John and Jeff. This operation will be the largest and most complex we have undertaken to date as a flight crew and will involve many new aspects to us on the operational side of things, such as logistics, transportation, and communications between the 2 flight groups. The specifics of the operational are still being planned and finalized and a more comprehensive overview of the operation will be available in the following week. 

AT409 Week 10 Report

 

Week 10

11/02/2020

John Cox, Kaleb Gould, Jeff Hines

 

Introduction

Week 10 was quite unusual for the entirety of our capstone class. The class had a suspected COVID-19 exposure that kept a large portion of us quarantined and unable to fly. Thankfully, the class has made it through this scare with no major health issues, however it did set our operations back roughly a week. Some flight crews were still able to get together and fly, but crew one has two members quarantined, meaning we could not get out and gather data for this week. While unfortunate, that does not mean we were not actively discussing and planning for future activities in the capstone. 

Crew 1 Looks Toward the Future of Purdue’s Unmanned Department

Looking forward, we collectively want to continue our work with Purdue’s unmanned fleet, leading research efforts, assisting in interdisciplinary work, and restructuring how the Purdue unmanned fleet operates and is maintained. Each member of crew 1 seems to have found a specialty that they excel at: Kaleb exceling at flight and knowledge of each platform, John blossoming as the head unmanned mechanic, and Jeff leading data analysis and post processing. With these specialties in mind, the group has attempted to make UAS operations at Purdue more in line with the standards that are expected of manned aircraft. This includes clear and straightforward checklists, a compliance with standardized maintenance for all platforms in service, and creating step-by-step instructions for data handling and EZSurv operations. In these regards, we have put a great deal of work into the fleet and Purdue’s unmanned infrastructure. However, looking forward, these practices need to be replicable by students and faculty if these efforts are to remain fruitful. With that in mind, we want to place a higher emphasis on accessibility and clearly defining the standard operating procedures for each of the key operations that our team faces. 

Kaleb has been doing a fantastic job this semester, as he has been working closely with Dr. Hupy and William Weldon in improving upon the current checklists and defining standard procedures for field work. John is treading mostly uncharted territory in terms of creating a maintenance schedule. However, he has a plethora of experience working on manned aircraft through his study to become an A&P certified mechanic. His is actively recording all his modifications and inspections, as is standard in manned aviation, and wants to ensure these practices will continue once he leaves Purdue. Jeff has some experience instructing others on how to handle post-flight data, as he walked through the procedure with crews two and four, as well as instructed Logan on how to navigate and use EZSurv. Additionally, he has created a detailed SOP for operating within the DataDump folder. Moving forward, Jeff wants to revise his SOP and create a checklist that future students can use as well as refine the current SOP to Week 10

11/02/2020

John Cox, Kaleb Gould, Jeff Hines

 

include EZSurv operations and proper SD card management. Each member hopes to hone in on these aspects of UAS operation throughout the rest of 409 and possibly 419. 

                 

 

AT409 Week 9 Report

 

11/02/2020

John Cox, Kaleb Gould, Jeff Hines Introduction:

            This week flight crew 1 participated in another round of mock search and rescue flights for William Weldon, made plans for maintenance operations, and reorganized our lab area.  Special Event

This week we had the privilege of helping update our programs media material. The highlights included a new fleet photo of our two C-Astral Bramors, an M600 Pro, a M210, and a Mavic 2 Pro. Each of these have a special place in our curriculum, with an appropriate mission set when they are not being used in the classroom. A strong representation of the diversity that our program brings was captured with action shots from the day. Lastly our professor, graduate students and some undergrads where interviewed for their experiences. We talked about the applications of unmanned aerial systems, where our graduates go and describing the things our students do in the program. This event was long needed and very important to appropriately represent what we do. 

Overview:

Tuesday 9/20 Flights:            

Flight crew 1 assisted once again in William Weldon’s research flights at the Purdue Wildlife Area (PWA). As always, Weldon acted as the search coordinator for the experiment while John and Kaleb were on the recovery team, and Jeff was on the search team using the Loc8 software. This week Weldon chose to use only the Loc8 software for the search forgoing the normal setup of using 2 search teams. The operations proceeded smoothly, with the only event of note being that the Loc8 software failed to locate the simulated missing person one the third flight after 2 scans; this was the first time sense crew 1 has been assigned to this mission that loc8 failed to find its target and that flight was subsequently aborted. This, as well as the metadata for the other flights are listed in the table below: 

Metadata
Date	10/20/20
Location	Purdue Wildlife Area
Vehicle	DJI Mavic 2 Pro
Sensor	CMOS
Data Set	1
Crew Information
Search Coordinator	William Weldon
PIC	Logan Jones
VO	Connor Cromwell
Loc8 Search Team	Jeff Hines (Flights 1&2), Joe Hammel (Flights 3&4)
Recovery Team	John Cox, Kaleb Gould

11/02/2020

John Cox, Kaleb Gould, Jeff Hines

Flight 1
Takeoff Time	10:39 AM
Landing Time	10:50 AM
Search Begin	10:52 AM
Loc8 Discovery	10:56 AM
Recovery Team Dispatch	10:57 AM
Recovery	11:01 AM
Flight 2
Takeoff Time	11:11AM
Landing Time	11:22 AM
Search Begin	11:23 AM
Loc8 Discovery	11:26 AM
Recovery Team Dispatch	11:27AM
Recovery	11:37AM
***Flight 3 ***
Takeoff Time	11:46 AM
Landing Time	11:58 AM
Search Begin	12:00 PM
Loc8 Discovery	N/A
Recovery Team Dispatch	N/A
Recovery	N/A
Flight 4
Takeoff Time	12:28 PM
Landing Time	12:39 PM
Search Begin	12:41 PM
Loc8 Discovery	12:42 PM
Recovery Team Dispatch	12:43 PM
Recovery	1:00 PM

Table 1: 9/20 Flight Metadata

*** Loc8 Failed to ID target after 2 scans. Mission Aborted at 12:17 PM. Weldon personally recovered the target and hid it again. *** Friday 9/23 Flight:  

Flight canceled due to inclement weather conditions. 

Instead of flying crew 1 decided to use the time we had dedicated to the flight to partially reorganize our lab area. Flight crew 1 organized Maintenance folders and unpacked and labeled new M600 batteries. Additionally, the senor mounting on the DJI M600 had failed. One of the screw mounting points on the sensor mounting rig had worn through, necessitating replacement. William and Kaleb took on the task of 3D printing a new mounting rig and John set aside time to perform the repair at a later date when the replacement part was available. A maintenance entry 11/02/2020

John Cox, Kaleb Gould, Jeff Hines

for the parts replacement will be dine in accordance with 14 CFR part 107 upon completion of the repair.

 

 

AT409 Week 8 Report

 

Week 8

Introduction

            The week of October 11^th through the 17^th involved working with crew 4 surprisingly often. On October 13^th, both crews were assigned to aid in Weldon’s search and rescue missions at the Purdue Wildlife Area (PWA). Additionally, there was a miscommunication between crews on October 16^th regarding who was flying the Martell flight for that day. The issue was quickly resolved, ending with crew 1 (John and Jeff) flying the Martell mission that day while crew 4 opted to study Bramor procedures in the lab.

October 13^th – PWA Search and Rescue

            At 9:30 on October 13^th, crews one and four met with William Weldon and Ethan Hoke at PWA to begin the search and rescue missions of the day. Weldon made a series of changes to the standard operations of these missions including reducing the number of data analysts to only one person utilizing Loc8. Additionally, a map of the flight area was designed with a grid overlay. These maps were provided to the data analysts so they could dispatch the recovery team(s) more effectively, directing them to specific grid locations rather than offering vague directions toward the target. Jeff Hines took the role as primary data handler and operator of the Loc8 program. Logan Jones acted as PIC for the Mavic 2 flights. Other members present acted as visual observers whenever the Mavic 2 was airborne and recovery teams during data processing. The full breakdown of roles can be seen in Table 1 below.

Mission Conductor	William Weldon
Data Handler & Loc8 Operator	Jeff Hines
Mavic 2 PIC	Logan Jones
Visual Observer & Recovery Team Member	John Cox, Conner Cromwell, Kalbe Gould, Joe Hammel, Ethan Hoke,

Table 1

PWA responsibilities on October 13^th, 2020

            Operations began immediately with Weldon hiding the target upon initial setup while the other crews continued setting up their respective areas – the Loc8 program and the Mavic 2. The first flight took off at 9:51 and completed its mission with no issues at 10:02. All important times related with the day’s flights can be found in Table 2 – any bolded entries imply that was the dispatch that recovered the target. The Loc8 operator had trouble identifying the exact location of the target, so he sent out two teams to search areas he though the target might be at 10:08. Despite the increased numbers, both recovery teams returned nearly 10 minutes after with negative results. The maps were referenced for the first dispatch, but it seems there was some confusion between the data analyst and the recovery teams in reading these maps. After both parties gathered, discussed the map and the location that the target was spotted, the teams were sent out again at 10:21 and the target was recovered at 10:33. To the credit of both parties, the maps were created such that the fields were not divided evenly which lead to confusion. Diagram 1 depicts a map with similar characteristics to the ones provided to the crews present that day. Those present and using the maps suggested a revised map, one with more standard spacing for the location.

 

Diagram 1

Representation of the maps provided to the crews on October 13^th, 2020

The second flight went according to the books, with quick flight and data analysis turnaround times as well as a first attempt recovery of the target. However, at the start of the third flight there were some concerns about the steadily increasing wind speed. After some discussion with the PIC and consulting the KLAF METAR, we determined it was safe to conduct a third flight and we would check the updated METAR before conducting a fourth flight. Once again, the flight and data processing side of the mission went according to the books, but there was an error when sending out the first recovery team. The Loc8 operator sent the first team out to the wrong location due to a desire to get boots on the ground as soon as possible. After

a few more minutes of analyzing photos, he realized his mistake and sent out another team to the appropriate location. The target was found quickly after.

            Upon completion of the third flight, the team waited 10 minutes for the KLAF METAR to update, in order to get a more accurate wind speed. Once the METAR updated, the PIC determined the wind was too volatile to continue safe operations and cancelled any further PWA flights. The crews packed up the equipment for the day and returned to COMP 101. After ensuring there were no further tasks that Weldon needed or wanted done, crew 1 completed their search and rescue missions for the day around 12:30.

	Takeoff Time	Landing Time	Search Begins	Discovery	Dispatch	Second Dispatch	Recovery
Flight 1	9:51	10:02	10:04	10:07	10:08	10:21	10:33
Flight 2	10:43	10:55	10:56	11:01	11:02	N/A	11:07
Flight 3	11:16	11:28	11:29	11:36	11:39	11:42	11:49

Table 2

Important time markers for each flight at PWA on October 13^th, 2020

 

October 16^th – Martell M600 Flight 

            When our flight crew assembled at the lab to prepare for the days flight, we encountered a scheduling issue - flight crews 1 and 4 had scheduled a flight at the same time. After a brief discussion, the crews realized that the communication error was due to a nuance in using the google calendar system. If someone creates an event in the calendar, everyone in the group can see the event but only those assigned to the event will receive a notification. After resolving that issue, another mistake was made; while packing for the flight, the PPK case was not opened and checked before it was loaded. This lead to the flight crew going out to the mission area without realizing they had left the PPK batteries on the charger back at the lab. Upon realizing this, the PIC the return to retrieve them while the SO stayed on site with the aircraft and equipment. Once the above issues had been addressed, at 10:23am John Cox and Jeff Hines began another set of flights over the Martel forest northwest and northeast plots.

Having learned from last week that Jeff’s car was too small to fit the M600 case they tried John’s car; his was also too small for the entire M600 case. The team was able to transport the M600 partially assembled in John’s car without its case much like last week.

Once the aircraft was assembled John acted as PIC for the mission and Jeff the FO/VO to encourage flight safety. The team was under a bit of a time crunch, as John had a class to attend at 11:30, so they decided to remain in familiar roles for this set of missions for the sake of time. The missions went smoothly with no further issues. The relevant metadata and important times for the two flights are recorded in the Table 3 below. Upon completion of the flights, the aircraft was partially disassembled in order to fit it into the vehicle. The data gathered from the flight was post processed according to standard procedure by Jeff. In the meantime, John disassembled and stored the aircraft in the COMP 101 lab, ensuring all batteries and controllers were placed on their charging ports to be used by the next flight crew. 

	Aircraft	Sensor(s)	Batteries	Takeoff Time	Landing Time
Flight 1 - Martell Northwest	M600	Sony A6000 & Zenmuse XT2	Yellow	10:23	10:44
Flight 2 - Martell Northeast	M600	Sony A6000 & Zenmuse XT2	Pink	10:51	11:16

Table 3

Abridged metadata for the flights on October 16^th, 2020

Upon concluding the days operations, flight crew 1 gathered to discuss the issues in the mission's preparation. Jeff and John identified 3 main problems that needed to be addressed: 

1.)  2 flight crews being assigned to the same aircraft at the same time due to miscommunication 

2.)  Not checking the PPK case before packing it

3.)  Not checking to make sure the PPK batteries were in their appropriate case prior to departing the lab  

The flight crew determined that the miscommunication was mainly due to the inexperience of various members of the class with Microsoft Teams. As corrective action, it has been suggested that every flight crew have their flights scheduled at least 1 week in advance and check the calendar on the Sunday of each week. The PPK case incident and the batteries was determined to follow this chain of events: Flight crew 1 was delayed by the miscommunication with flight crew 4, this caused the flight crew to rush to get the aircraft loaded. The SO, Jeff, did not check the PPK case prior to loading it in the vehicle. The PIC, John, did not ask and then verify with the SO that the PPK case and its batteries were ready. It is in flight crew 1’s own opinion that the rush to get into the mission area, a degree of complacency, and a failure to follow the proper checklist and procedures led to our failure to bring the PPK batteries to the field. Corrective measures to be taken by the flight crew will be a much stricter adherence to the checklists. It is recommended among our members that the PIC of the mission give a mission brief to the rest of the flight crew before the vehicle is packed, this briefing should include: The mission location, aircraft and sensor to be used, the roles of the individual flight crew members, and a verbal reading of the aircraft packing and preflight checklist.