barcelona smartdrone challenge 2018smartdronechallenge.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/... ·...

Issue 10 – 2017/18

BARCELONASmartDrone

Challenge 2018 Competition Rules

Mission and Competition Rules Issue 10, Agust 2017

© - Sharing passion for flying - 1

Issue 10 – 2017/18

Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................….........… 5

2. Competition Overview .......................................................................................… 7

3. Design and Operational Requirements .........................…...............................… 11

4. Statement of Work ............................................................................…..............… 17

5. Adjudication and Scoring Criteria ....................................................................… 22

6. Prizes and Awards …….......................................................................…..............… 27

Annex A - Mission ..................................................................................…..........… 28

Annex B - UAS Safety and Airworthiness Requirements …............................… 33

Annex C - GPS Tracker Installation and Operation .........……..............…............ 35

Annex D - General Guidance for Teams .............................................…..........… 37

Annex E - Document Templates and Guidance ...............…...............…..........… 39

Annex F - Guidance on Autopilot Selection .....................…................…..….....… 44


Issue 10 – 2017/18

Glossary and Abbreviations

AGL Above Ground Level

BMFA British Model Flying Association

BRS Ballistic Recovery Systems

BSDC Barcelona SmartDrone Challenge

BVLOS Beyond Visual Line of Sight

CAA Civil Aviation Authority

CAT Catalonia

CDR Critical Design Review

COTS Commercial Off The Shelf

EU European Union

FMC Flight Management Computer

FRR Flight Readiness Review

FSO Flight Safety Ofcer

FTS Flight Termination System

GCS Ground Control Station

GPS Global Positioning System

KIAS Knots: Indicated Air Speed

MTOM Maximum Take-Off Mass

PDR Preliminary Design Review

QFE Q-Code Field Elevation - Altimeter zeroed at runway height

AESA State Air Safety Agency

UA Unmanned Aircraft

UAS Unmanned Aircraft System(s)

VFR Visual Flight Rules

VLOS Visual Line of Sight

WP Waypoint


Issue 10 – 2017/18

Competition Rules – Revision status

Issue 1, June 2015: Issued to Teams at the start of the 2015 competition

Issue 2, July 2015: incorporates responses to feedback and questions, including:

• Clarification on use and pricing of COTS items

• Definition of the height of the alphanumeric code in the target area

• Details of the supplied GPS Tracker

• Clarification on the target Mission time

• Clarification on automatic take-off and use of launch / recovery equipment

• Additional details provided on Flight Termination System functionality

• Clarification on dropping two payloads in the same sortie

• Clarification on measurement of payload drop accuracy

• Clarification on allowable means of protecting the payload

• Confirmation that UA is not permitted to land whilst deploying the payload

• Piloting competency requirements added.

Issue 3, March 2016: update to the example demonstration course and airfield map, Figures A2, A3.

Issue 4, April 2016: Extensively revised to incorporate feedback from the 2016 competition, and issued to Teams at the launch of the 2016 competition.

Issue 5, June 2016: incorporates responses to feedback and questions by UPC (Castelldefels).

Issue 6, June 2016: confirmation of demonstration event dates (29 Jun – 2 Jul 2016) in the “Circuit of Catalonia”.

Issue 7, June 2016: Demo ….

Issue 8, December 2016: Small changes of date and adjustment of clearer words.

Issue 9, January 2017: Change in the logo of BSDC, place the word "Barcelona".

Issue 10, Agust 2017: Presentation of new Challenge 2017-18.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

1 Introduction

1.1 Competition Overview

The challenge will engage University and Middle or Higher Cycle Schools undergraduate teamsin the design, construction, development and demonstration of an Autonomous UnmannedAircraft System (UAS). With a Maximum Take-off Mass (MTOM) of under 7 kg, and operatingwithin Visual Line of Sight (VLOS), the Unmanned Aircraft (UA) will be designed to undertake arepresentative humanitarian aid mission and social necessitation. It will require thesystem operates automatically in the first instance, humanitarian UAS fight plan upon beforethe fight will be awarded. This fight plan will be created by scouts UIICEF, will at the same timethe land o city houses where you have to perform humanitarian aid. This fight plan shouldtherefore consist of a series of tasks like taking a plane in the area of search, navigationwaypoints, seek the water infectation and accurately expel useful fuids that disinfect andkill insect larvae that are harmful to humans, possibility to change fight plan in real time bya new (possible movements of the needs of scouts UIICEF) and has always been to return tothe base through a defined route or creating a tour optimization settings and saving batterypower. It will take into account the ability to transmit real information from the UAS, which isalways revealing to UIICEF scouts.

The competition will be held annually over the duration of an academic year, with thecompetition commencing in September 2017, and the fight demonstration being held in earlyJuly 2018. This period will be structured into design, development and demonstration phases,with a Design Review presentation contributing to the scoring, as well as the fyingdemonstration.

1.2 Objectives of the Event

The competition has a number of objectives, in particular to:

1. Provide an opportunity for students to learn practical aerospace engineering skills forindustry

2. Provide a challenge to students in systems engineering of a complex system, requiringdesign, development and demonstration against a demanding mission requirement

3. Provide an opportunity for students to develop and demonstrate team working,leadership and commercial skills as well as technical competence

4. Stimulate interest in the civil UAS field

5. Enhance employment opportunities in the sector and

6. Foster inter-university and Middle or Higher Cycle Schools collaboration in the UAStechnology area, and to provide a forum for interdisciplinary research.

1.3 Real World Scenario

The real-life scenario is set in the near future. A natural disaster has occurred, with a largestretch of remote coastal area in a well-known South American city is devastated by anearthquake and a tsunami. It is known that several thousand people living in coastalcommunities are cut off Their destroyed houses and temperatures that rise above normallevels urgently need drops of food aid, shelter, first aid supplies and other aids to prevent thespread of insect pests that can kill the poor population. Time is critical, and a UAS deliverymission is launched from the Rescue Center some distance from the affected area.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

The UAS operates autonomously, transiting rapidly through pre-established points of passageinto the devastated area, with the image recognition used to identify and locate the area wherewater rafts are located in space that are difcult and mink from land. In these spaces of water iswhere they are suitable for the growth and abundance of these insects. In the safest and mostaccurate way they have to be located, I inject a special solution that causes these insects to dieand save the local population from their deadly stings. Return to the base via a different routeto ensure decentralization with other Rescue UAS operating in the area, to refuel and rechargeanother payload of the help. It repeats the mission in all weather conditions until the need to letits substance help to mitigate this insect population, maintaining a vital lifeline until a large-scale rescue mission can be set up to evacuate people from the area Devastated.

1.4 Structure of this document

Section 2 presents the overview of the competition, what is involved for participating teams, the schedule of key activities, eligibility and funding

Section 3 presents the requirement specification for the UAS, with sufcient information for teams to design and develop the system

Section 4 provides the ‘Statement of Work’ for the competition, outlining what is required in each of the stages, including the design review deliverables

Section 5 presents the Adjudication and Scoring criteria. This should help the teams in selecting and designing their concept to maximise their score, especially at the Preliminary Design stage

Section 6 summarises the Prize categories which will be awarded. These are designed to recognise merit and achievement in a range of areas refecting the key competition objectives

Annex A provides the representative mission to be fown, and around which the UAS is to be designed

Annex B details the safety and airworthiness requirements which encompass design requirements, such as Flight Termination System, and operating safety requirements such as the need for a suitably experienced pilot

Annex C gives technical details of the GPS tracker to be fitted to the UA, so that teams can make allowance in the design for installation of this item

Annex D provides some general guidance to help the teams develop a practical and competitive UAS

Annex E gives templates and guidance for completion of the three design review deliverables, the PDR, CDR and FRR.

Annex F provides guidance to the teams on autopilot selection.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

2 Competition Overview

2.1 Context

The competition is structured to replicate a real world aircraft system developmentprogramme, with a phased 9 month design and development process over the course of anacademic year, and culminating in the build, test and demonstration of the UAS. Deliverableshave been carefully specified to maintain reasonable technical rigour, yet aiming to keep theworkload manageable for student teams.

2.2 Generic Mission Task

The challenge is to design, build and demonstrate a small autonomous UAS to fy a missionwhich is modelled on the real life humanitarian aid scenario described in Section 1.3. Thecompetition will vary from year to year, but typically seek to test a number of characteristics,such as:

• Accuracy of payload delivery to pre-determined points on the ground

• Maximum mass of cargo that can be safely transported in an allocated time

• Quickest time to compete the payload delivery mission

• Iavigation accuracy via waypoint co-ordinates provided on the day

• Search object recognition, detecting, recognising and geo-locating objects

• Extent of automatic operations from take-off to landing

• Safety, demonstrating safe design and fight operations throughout

• Minimum environmental impact, notably noise levels and overall efciency

• Maximum payload / empty weight ratio.

The representative mission for the 2018 competition is presented at Annex A.

2.3 Development Stages

The UAS development stages comprise:

• Preliminary Design, culminating in the Preliminary Design Review (PDR)

• Detail Design, concluding with the Critical Design Review (CDR)

• Manufacture of the UAS

• Test

• Flight Readiness, including the Flight Readiness Review (FRR)

• Demonstration Event, including the Design Presentation, Scrutineering, CertificationFlight Test, and the Demonstration (Mission Flight).

Section 4 provides details of the stages and the ‘Statement of Work’ for the competition.Templates for the PDR, CDR and FRR deliverables, together with guidance on what the judgesare looking for, are provided at Annex E.

Figure 1 below depicts the competition stages, the key deliverables, the adjudication teamleading the assessment in each phase, and the main Prize Categories*.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

Figure 1: UAS Challenge Competition Stages

2.4 Challenge Schedule

The competition will be launched at the start of the academic year in September. Key activities and dates are as follows:

Date Activity Deliverable

July 20172016/17 Competition Launch, coincident with 2017 Demonstration event -

30 Sep 2017 2018 Rules provided to entrants -

15 Feb 2018 Deadline for entries to be received Entry form and fee

28 Feb 2018 Preliminary Design Review PDR report

30 Mar 2018 Critical Design Review CDR report

17 Jun 2018 Flight Readiness Review submission FRR report

July 2018

Demonstration Event, including: • Design and FRR Presentation • Scrutineering • Certification Flight Test • Mission Flight

PresentationFRR ScrutinyFlight TestFlight Demonstration(s)


Issue 10 – 2017/18

Exact dates and venue for the Demonstration Event will be published separately.

Adherence to deadlines is a prerequisite for entry into the next stage, and the organizers retainthe right to eliminate a team in the event that deliverables are not submitted on time.

2.5 Engineering Challenges

The competition has been designed to give students exposure to a number of disciplines thatthey will need in their engineering careers, and the requirement provides a number ofengineering challenges. Factors which the judges will be looking for include:

• a methodical systems engineering approach to identify the requirements, selection ofthe concept with a design to meet those requirements, and then test to confirm that theactual system meets the requirements in practice

• an elegant and efcient design solution, supported by an appropriate depth of analysisand modelling

• innovation in the approach to solving the engineering challenges

• due consideration of the safety and airworthiness requirements which shall beaddressed from the early concept stage right through into the fying demonstration

• appreciation of the practical engineering issues and sound design principles essentialfor a successful, robust and reliable UAS e.g. adequate strength and stiffness of keystructural components, alignment of control rods/mountings, servos specifiedappropriately for the control loads, consideration given to maintenance, ease of repairin the field

• construction quality, paying attention to good aerospace practice for such details asconnection of control linkages, use of locknuts, security of wiring and connections,resilience of the airframe and undercarriage

• good planning and team-working organizing the team to divide up roles andresponsibilities. Good communication and planning will be essential to achieve asuccessful competitive entry, on time and properly tested prior to the DemonstrationEvent

• automatic or autonomous operations the UAS should ideally be able to operateautomatically, without pilot intervention from take-off to touchdown

• A strong business proposition for your design, demonstrating good commercialunderstanding of how your design might be developed to generate revenue for anoperator.

• Attention to environmental impact, including minimising noise, developing an efcientaircraft design which minimises energy consumption, and attention to minimising use ofhazardous materials.

The prize categories (see Figure 1 above and Section 6) aim to recognize merit in overcomingthese engineering challenges. Guidance notes to help teams are provided at Annex D.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

2.6 Eligibility and Team Structure

The Competition is open to Undergraduates or students from any World University andIntermediate cycles of vocational training (FP & CAS). Whilst expected to be predominantlya CAT event, entrants from ‘other countries’ universities and middle or higher cycle schools arewelcomed.

Teams will be put forward by each University and Middle or Higher Cycle Schools, and willconstitute members drawn from student cohorts in any year of study.

A pair of Universities or and Middle or Higher Cycle Schools may form an alliance to enter ajoint team. Some specialist industry support is to be allowed, where specific skills andknowledge are required outside the scope of the undergraduate students.

The numbers of students in each team will be entirely determined by each University andMiddle or Higher Cycle Schools. This is so that the educational objectives can be determined tomeet the needs of each University’s (and Middle or Higher Cycle Schools) degree programmer.The competition, whilst having a set of defined performance objectives to achieve, is as muchabout the development and demonstration of team-working skills.

Please note that attendance at the Demonstration Event is limited to no more than 10members per team, plus up to 3 support staf, e.g. pilots or academic staff.

2.7 Sponsorship of Teams

Universities are encouraged to approach potential commercial sponsors, particularly aerospacecompanies at any time prior to or during the competition, for both financial support andtechnical advice. Iote that where technical advice is received from sponsors, the judges willneed to be sure that by far the majority of the development work has been undertaken by thestudents themselves. Such sponsorship shall be fully acknowledged in the Design Reviewsubmissions.

2.8 Cost and Funding

An entry fee of 900€ (VAT 21% NOT INCLUDED) per team is payable upon submission of anentry form. This fee contributes towards the cost of putting on the Demonstration Event. It isnon-refundable in the event that a team cannot participate in the Demonstration Event.

Universities and Middle or Higher Cycle Schools shall NOT fund the costs of their UAS designand development, and their attendance at the Design Review and Demonstration events.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

3 Design and Operational Requirements

The UAS shall be designed to perform up to three missions whilst being compliant with the specification defined in this section. The term ‘shall’ denotes a mandatory requirement. The term ‘should’ denotes a highly desirable requirement. Where a paragraph is in italics and preceded by “Iote:” this indicates a point of guidance or clarification rather than a design requirement.

3.1 UAS Requirement Specifcation

The UAS shall be designed to meet the following constraints and have the following features:

3.1.1 Mission

The ‘humanitarian aid’ mission to be fown is presented at Annex A. Iote that details ofWaypoint co-ordinates will be provided at the start of the Demonstration Event.

3.1.2 Airframe Confguration and Mass

Either Fixed Wing or Rotary Wing solutions are permissible, with a Maximum Take- Off Mass(MTOM) not exceeding 7 kg, including the payload(s).

3.1.3 Propulsion

Electric motors or internal combustion engines are permitted for propulsion.

3.1.4 Payload Specifcation

The payload(s) to be delivered by the UA shall be standard commercially available ONE liter ofinsecticide liquid, provided to the teams by the organizers at the Demonstration Event.

3.1.5 Payload Carriage and Delivery

The UA shall be designed to carry and release up to one payload, as specified in Section 3.1.4.

The payload(s) shall be individually deployable from the UA by either manual or automaticcommand. Only one payload shall be jettisoned at any one instant, i.e. payloads may not beganged together and dropped simultaneously.

The payload(s) shall be deployed whilst the aircraft is in fight, from any suitable height abovethe ground. The UA is not permitted to land to deploy the payload.

The UA design may incorporate features to provide protection and cushioning of the payload tokeep it intact during the deployment and ground impact, but the payload shall not itself bemodified, for example by permanent reinforcement with duct tape.

The payload can be inserted into a protective module, but without modifying the four bags inany way. The four cannot be decanted into a different container. Protection afforded to the bagof four shall be removable without the use of any tools and without damaging the originalpackaging. Thus wrapping in bubble wrap is permitted.

To score maximum points, the payload shall remain intact through the deployment and afterimpact with the ground.

3.1.6 Safety and Airworthiness

The UAS shall comply with the Safety Requirements given at Annex B.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

3.1.7 Autonomy

The UAS shall operate in a fully automatic manner as far as practicable, including automatictake-off and landing. UAS which are manually operated are permitted, although manualoperation will score considerably fewer points.

Iote: Stability augmentation systems do not classify as ‘autonomous’ or ‘automatic’ control, andshall count as part of manual control.

Iote: Automatic take-off implies that the system, after it has been started, can be positioned atthe runway threshold manually, then when the control transferred to platform, it executes thetake-off without human intervention. Auxiliary launch/landing equipment is permitted, so longas it all operates autonomously. Hand launch is also permitted.

3.1.8 Limits on use of COTS Items

The UAS airframe and control systems shall be designed from scratch, and not based uponcommercially available kits or systems. This is a qualifying rule, meaning that an entrant basedon a commercially available system will not be eligible for consideration.

A guideline maximum value of COTS components used in the UA itself is 1,000€. A Bill ofMaterials and costs will be required as part of the design submission. Cost efcient solutionswill score more points.

Teams may use COTS components which already exist at the University and Middle or HigherCycle Schools, but for which no receipts are available. An estimate of the price can be obtainedby looking up part numbers or by manufacturer, and a screen shot of the price will sufce.

Teams shall also demonstrate that manufacture of the airframe and integration of the UASinvolves a significant proportion of effort from the students themselves, rather than beingsubstantially outsourced to a contractor.

Iote: Permitted Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) stock component parts include motors,batteries, servos, sensors, autopilots and control boards such as the Pixhawk or Ardupilotplatforms. Guidance on potentially suitable autopilots is provided at Annex F. Teams areallowed to use the supplied software with COTS autopilots, although it may need modifying tomeet the specific mission challenges.

3.1.9 Radio Equipment

All radio equipment and datalinks shall comply with AESA/EU directives, and shall be licensedfor use in the Catalonia (Spain).

Radio equipment, including data links, shall be capable of reliable operating ranges at least of 1km.

Radio equipment providing control of the UAS and the Flight Termination System shall be‘Spread Spectrum’ compliant on the 2.4 GHz bandwidth, to allow simultaneous testing of severalUAS without interference. Evidence of compliance shall be presented in the CDR submissionand at the Flight Readiness Review.

The radio equipment shall include a buddy box transmitter, which as a minimum shall allow theFlight Safety Ofcer to activate the Flight Termination System should this be required.

If an imagery downlink is incorporated, and if it is central to the safety of fight, control or forFlight Termination decisions, then it shall be suitably reliable and resilient to interference.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

3.1.10 Camera / Imaging System

The UA should carry a camera system and target recognition capability to undertake the targetsearch, location and identification exercise set out in Mission 2, see Annex A.3.2.

3.1.11 Location Finder

It is recommended that in the event of the UA making an un-commanded departure andlanding outside of the designated Flying Zone, the UA makes an audible/visual warning toimprove ease of UA location.

3.1.12 Tracking System

A GPS Data Logger shall be fitted permitting post-fight evaluation of the 3D trajectory.Organizers may ask a team member to provide a file with the GPS tracker for each team at thestart of the demonstration event, which operates independently and can be easily integratedinto the UA. A full specification for the new GPS tracker is attached at Annex C. The tracker shallbe easily releasable from the UA, for analysis by the organizers after each fight.

3.1.13 Environmental Impact

In the design process, consideration should be given to environmental impact, including the useof non-hazardous and recyclable materials low pollution low energy usage low noise.

Teams are encouraged to determine the overall energy consumption of the Mission Flight, as ameasure of the efciency of the UA. For IC engines, this could be done simply by measuring thefuel usage, and to facilitate this the fuel tank should be designed to be readily removable fromthe UA so that it can be weighed (or contents measured) before and after the fight.

For electric powered UAs, the electrical energy consumed could be measured directly, forexample via a power logger between the ESC and the electric motor. Points will be awardedboth for incorporating into the design the ability to measure the energy consumption, and alsofor achieving good efciency.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

3.2 Operational Requirements

3.2.1 Missions

Three separate missions can be fown, each testing different performance characteristics of theUAS which would be important for a humanitarian aid capability. These are:

a. PayloadDelivery

b. Reconnaissance

c. Endurance

Details of the three missions are set out at Annex A, and the scoring criteria for these Missionsis presented at Section 5.2.

3.2.2 Take-of and Landing

The UA shall be designed to take off and land from within a 30 m diameter circle. Landingincludes touchdown and roll-out, with the UA required to stop within the box.

The UA should be capable of operating from short grass or hard runway surfaces.

Use of an auxiliary launcher, or hand launch is permitted providing the design and operation isdeemed satisfactory by the Flight Safety Ofcer and scrutineers.

3.2.3 Design Mission Range and Endurance

For the purpose of sizing the fuel / battery load, the design team should consider Mission 3 inparticular, which is designed to test the endurance of the UAS.

The Mission will not require the UA to operate further than 500 m from the pilot. For resilienceof operation, the radio equipment including data links, shall be capable of reliable operatingranges of 1 km.

3.2.4 Weather Limitations

The UA should be designed to operate in winds of up to 20 kts gusting to 25 kts, and light rain.The UA should typically be capable of take-off and landing in crosswind components to therunway of 5 kts with gusts of 8 kts.

3.2.5 GroundControlStation

If a Ground Control Station is used, it is desirable but not mandated that the followinginformation should be displayed and be visible to the Operators, Flight Safety Ofcer andJudges:

• Current UA position on a moving map

• Local Airspace, including the Flying Zone

• Height AGL (QFE)

• Indicated Airspeed (kts)

• Information on UA Health.

In the absence of such live telemetry, the Judges’ and / or Flight Safety Ofcer’s decision onboundary breaches is final.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

3.3 Safety and Environmental Requirements

3.3.1 FlightTerminationSystem

A Flight Termination System (FTS) shall be incorporated as part of the design and is amandatory requirement to achieve a Permit To Fly. The purpose of the FTS is to initiateautomatically all relevant actions which transform the UA into a low energy state should thedata links between the Ground Control Station (GCS) and UA be lost or be subject tointerference / degradation. The FTS shall also be capable of manual selection via the Buddy Box,should the Flight Safety Ofcer deem the UA’s behaviour a threat to the maintenance of AirSafety.

The actions of the FTS must aim to safely land the UA as soon as possible after initiation. Thethrottle shall be set to idle / engine off. Other actions could include, but are not limited to:deployment of a recovery parachute the movement of all control surfaces to a default positionto achieve a glide the initiation of a deep stall manoeuvre movement of the relevant controlsurfaces to achieve a gentle turn.

The FTS shall be automatically initiated after 5 seconds lost Uplink. The Uplink is defined as thedata link which provides control inputs to the UA from the GCS (manually or autonomously),including manual initiation of the FTS.

The FTS should be automatically initiated promptly and no longer than 10 seconds after lostDownlink. The Downlink is defined as the data link which relays the UA’s telemetry / positionalinfo and video feed to the GCS.

A ‘Return to Home’ function is not acceptable as an FTS.

3.3.2 OtherDesignSafetyRequirements

The design and construction of the UAS shall employ good design practice, with appropriate useof materials and components

The design shall be supported by appropriate analysis to demonstrate satisfactory structuralintegrity, stability and control, fight and navigation performance, and reliability of safety criticalsystems.

Batteries used in the UA shall contain bright colours to facilitate their location in the event of acrash

At least 25% of the upper, lower and each side surface shall be a bright colour to facilitatevisibility in the air and in the event of a crash

Any fuel / battery combination deemed high risk in the opinion of the judges may bedisqualified.

3.3.3 OperationalSafetyRequirements

The UA shall remain within Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) and no greater than 500m horizontallyfrom the Pilot, and remain below 400 ft AGL

The UA shall not be fown within 50 m of any person, vessel, vehicle or structure not under thecontrol of the Pilot. During take-off or landing however, the UA shall not be fown within 30 m ofany person, unless that person is under the control of the Pilot1

The maximum airspeed of the UA in level fight shall not exceed 60 KIAS

During the entire fight the UA shall remain in controlled fight and within the geofence


Issue 10 – 2017/18

boundary of the Flying Zone

Failure of the Pilot to recover promptly a UA appearing uncontrolled or departing from theFlying Zone, shall require activation of the FTS, either by the Pilot or at the direction of the FSO.

3.3.4 Pilot Licencing and Insurance

The team pilot shall have a BMFA-A qualification or equivalent (such equivalence shall bedemonstrated to the satisfaction of the IMechE). Evidence of qualifications shall be providedwith the FRR submission. The team pilot shall have fown the UAS before (including during theFRR video).

The pilot shall have appropriate Civil Liability Insurance and Personal Accident Insurance tocover test fying and the Demonstration Event.

Note: The BMFA ofeer oomettittively meti ed tinruean e foe oeobeer.

3.3.5 Environmental Impact

In the design process, consideration should be given to environmental impact, including the useof non-hazardous and recyclable materials low pollution low energy usage low noise.

Teams are encouraged to determine the overall efciency of the UA, by measuring the energyusage (chemical or electrical) during the testing prior to the Demonstration Event.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

4 Statement of Work

This section provides more details of the activities and outputs in each stage.

Templates for the deliverable PDR, CDR and FRR reports are provided at Annex E. The schedulefor the key milestones and deliverables is provided at Section 2.4.

4.1 Challenge Stages

Figure 1 below depicts the stages of the Challenge, and the key deliverables:

Figure 1: UAS Challenge Stages and Deliverables

Concept: Requirements capture, trade studies, selection of system concept, initial sizing andperformance studies, and generation of the outline design. As a guide this stage is around 3months long and concludes with the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) submission.

Design and desenvolupament: Detailed design for manufacture supported by structural,aerodynamic, system and performance analysis. This stage should include an assessment ofhow the requirements are to be verified through test, and importantly how the safetyrequirements are to be met. Some prototyping may also be undertaken. This stage is around 3months long and concludes with the Critical Design Review (CDR) submission.

Manufature and Test: Construction of the UAS. This may also involve the manufacture ofprototypes during the detail design stage to de-risk the design. Demonstration throughanalysis, modelling and physical test that the design will meet the requirements, and issufciently robust and reliable. Physical test should include subsystem test, as well as fighttesting of the complete UAS. This stage concludes with the submission of the Flight ReadinessReview (FRR) submission.

Demonstration: The fying demonstration event is held over two days and comprises a multi-stage process of qualification and demonstration, including:

• Design Presentation

• Scrutineering


Issue 10 – 2017/18

• Certification Flight Test

• Mission Flights

• Business Case Presentation.

Further details of the Demonstration Event are provided at Section 4.4.

4.2 Deliverable Items Description

4.2.1 Design Reports

Guidance on the PDR, CDR and FRR deliverable items is provided at Annex E.

4.2.2 Design Presentation

Early in the Demonstration Event, each team will give a 12 minute presentation on key aspectsof the design and development to the judging panel. As a guide, the presentation shouldinclude the FRR Video and 5 presentation software slides. There will be up to 8 minutes forquestions. Timings will be strictly enforced.

The assessment panel will be looking to test each team’s communication skills as well astechnical knowledge demonstrating good teamwork and organization giving good responsesto questions demonstrating a clear and concise presentation of the concept selection process,key design features and supporting analysis, and the development and test programmed.

4.2.3 Environmental Impact Poster

Teams shall produce an A3 size poster summarizing the environmental aspects of the designand operation. The assessors will be looking for evidence that the team has made efforts tominimize the environmental impact of the design.

4.2.4 Manufacturing Poster

Teams shall produce an A3 size poster with pictures and summary showing the build, assemblyand test. This shall be submitted to the organizers on arrival at the Demonstration Event, andwill be displayed at the event. The Judges will review the Poster and the Scrutineering Panel willassess the Manufacturing quality of the physical UA.

4.2.5 Business Case Presentation

During the Demonstration event, teams will be invited to participate in of “Especial invited”event to pitch their Business Case for the UAS. They should give a well-articulatedunderstanding of their market, an outline revenue model and sales projections, and summarizehow the UAS capabilities and cost projections align with the target market. Teams will have 5minutes to present their case, and there will then be 5 minutes of questioning from the Invited.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

4.3 Deliverable Items Schedule

The schedule of deliverable items and activities is as follows:

Deliverable Due Date Reference

Preliminary Design Review Submission 15 January 2018 Annex E.1

Critical Design Review Submission 30 April 2018 Annex E.2

Flight Readiness Review Submission 11 June 2018 Annex E.3

Design Presentation 7-8 July 2018 * Section 4.2.2

Environmental Impact Poster 7-8 July 2018 * Section 4.2.3

Manufacturing Poster 7-8 July 2018 * Section 4.2.4

Business Presentation 7-8 July 2018 * Section 4.2.5

* At start of Demonstration Event

4.4 Demonstration Event

4.4.1 Logistics

A detailed briefing will be given prior to the Demonstration Event covering the logistics andtimings for the event, rules and good conduct for safe operations, pre-fight briefings etc.

Teams will also be given a running order and strict time schedule for the qualification process,including presentation, scrutineering, certification fight test, and fight missions. The scheduleis necessarily tight and teams who are not ready to fy at their appointed slot time will have tore-apply for a later slot, at the discretion of the organisers. Iote that the fying schedule is likelyto be dynamic and updated during the event to take account of weather and UASunserviceability.

It is expected that Teams will arrive with a fully serviceable UAS that is in good workingcondition. Efforts will be made to retain fexibility in the schedule to allow teams who fail topass one of the qualification events time to repair, rectify, test and re-apply, but scoringpenalties may apply..

4.4.2 Scrutineering

Following the presentation, a panel of expert aircraft engineers will inspect the UAS to ensurethat it is safe and airworthy, that any Corrective Actions made following the CDR submission orat the Design presentation have been addressed, and that any late modifications introducedare reviewed and acceptable. The scrutineering panel will have reviewed the FRR submission(see Annex E.3), which is a key input to the Scrutineering process as it should contain evidenceof satisfactory testing

The assessment will include:

• Regulatory Compliance - Pass/Fail criteria


Issue 10 – 2017/18

• Control checks – Communications Function and Sense

◦ Radio range check, motor off and motor on

◦ Verify all controls operate in the correct sense

• Airworthiness Inspection – Structural and Systems Integrity

◦ Verify that all components are adequately secured, fasteners are tight and are correctly locked

◦ Verify propeller structural and attachment integrity

◦ Check general integrity of the payload and deployment system

◦ Visual inspection of all electronic wiring to assure adequate wire gauges have been used, wires and connectors are properly supported

◦ Verify correct operation of the fail safe and fight termination systems

A ‘Permit to Test’ is awarded following satisfactory completion of the Scrutineering, and an amber sticker (max 10 cm x 10 cm) applied to the UA. This will allow the team to progress to theCertification Flight Test stage.

Should the UAS fail the Scrutineering, the team will be given the chance, if practical and if time permits, to rectify the issues and re-apply for Scrutineering.

4.4.3 Manufacturing Assessment

The Scrutineering Panel will also conduct the Manufacturing Assessment (a marked Prize) andlook for:

▪ Design and Build quality, including use of appropriate materials, systems integrationand configuration control

▪ Attention to detail in assembly and aesthetics

▪ Sound and safe workshop practices.

4.4.4 Certifcation Flight Test

The Certification Flight Test will assess the Basic Operation, to include:

▪ Take-off from the designated Take-off and Landing area. After take-off the UAS shall maintain steady controlled fight at altitudes above 30 m (100 ft) and less than 122m AGL (400 ft). Take-off under manual control with transition to automatic control is permitted

▪ Demonstrate maneuverability by fying a figure of eight, in the same fight

▪ Loiter in a ‘race-track’ pattern over the airfield at a defined point for a period of 2 minutes at a height of 30 m (100 ft)

▪ Land, back at the take-off point

▪ An element of ground-based assistance for take-off and landing is acceptable, but the aircraft should operate automatically during other phases of fight

▪ Demonstrate switch between manual and automatic fight.

The assessors will be looking to confirm that the team operating the UAS is competent as wellas confirming the airworthiness of the UAS itself.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

On satisfactory completion of the Certification Flight Test, a ‘Permit to Fly’ will be issued by theFlight Safety Ofcer, and a green sticker, signed by the safety ofcer, shall be applied to the UA.This is a simple visual way of confirming that a UAS has clearance to participate in the fyingevent.

4.4.5 Flight Demonstration - Mission

Upon successful issue of a Permit to Fly, the Team will have a short time to prepare theiraircraft for the Mission Flight.

Three missions comprise:

a) PayloadDelivery

b) Reconnaissance

c) Endurance.

The Mission brief is presented in Annex A with sample waypoint data. The exact missionwaypoint and target co-ordinates will be briefed to each team at the start of the event.

4.4.6 Safety of Operations

The Flight Safety Ofcer shall have absolute discretion to refuse a team permission to fy, or toorder the termination of a fight in progress.

Only teams issued with a ‘Permit to Test’ through the Scrutineering process, and a ‘Permit to Fly’through the Certification Test Flight, will be eligible to enter the Flying Demonstration stage Teams shall be responsible for removal of all batteries from the site that they bring to theevent, including safe disposal of any damaged batteries.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

5 Adjudication and Scoring Criteria

5.1 Overall Scoring Breakdown

The competition will be assessed across three main elements, themselves broken down intosub-elements:

• Design (150 points), comprising:

• PDR Submission (25)

• CDR Submission (85)

• Business Case Presentation (25)

• Environmental Impact Poster (15)

• Flight Readiness (100 points), comprising:

• Design Presentation and FRR Submission (50)

• Scrutineering and Manufacturing Poster (50)

• Flight Demonstration (250 points), comprising

• Mission 1 – Payload Delivery (100)

• Mission 2 – Reconnaissance (75)

• Mission 3 – Endurance (75)

A maximum of 500 points is therefore available. The detail of scoring the Flight Demonstration is given in the tables below.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

5.2 Flight Demonstrations (250)

5.2.1 Mission 1: Payload Delivery (100)*

Test Scoring MaxScore

Payload Delivery Score 7 points per ½ l of payload mass dropped within 20 m of target. 42*

Payload Integrity Halve Payload Delivery points per bag for each bag which splits open on impact.

Payload Accuracy

Score 3 points per ½ l of payload mass dropped within 5 meters of target centre.

18* Score 1 point per ½ l of payload mass between 5 m and 10 m from target centre.

Score zero points per payload > 10 meters from target centre.

Iavigation Accuracy

Score 3 points per WP successfully navigated up to maximum 15 points.

15 Halve Iavigation score for single extended breach of Geo-fence (> 5s).

Score zero Iavigation points for persistent or repeated breach of Geo-fence

Autonomous Operations

Score 25 points for fully autonomous operation including Take-Off, Iavigation, Payload Drop, and Landing.

25 Deduct 5 points for manual take-off.

Deduct 5 points for manual landing.

Score zero Autonomous Operations points if fight fully manual.

Maximum Preparation Time

Deduct 10 points if team is not ready for take-off within 10 minutes of arriving at the fightline.

Maximum MissionTime

Deduct 5 points for every minute over the 10 minute maximum mission time, measured from take-off to touchdown and the aircraft coming to a halt.

Maximum Flightline Time

For each attempted mission, whether successful or not, the maximum time limit is 20minutes from a team being notified it is first in line for a mission fight to departing the fight-line area after the mission. Deduct 2 points for every minute over this 20 minute limit.

Maximum Score: 100 *

* Maximum score assumes 3kg payload mass deployed. Iote that 3kg is not a maximum payload mass limit within the rules(though it may be challenging technically). Thus the Maximum Score achieved could be greater than 100 if more than 3kg payloadmass were successfully deployed.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

5.2.2 Mission 2: Reconnaissance (75)


Locate Target Score 8 points for correctly identifying the GPS co-ordinates of each of four Targets, to within 5 metres accuracy from measured target position.

32

Accuracy Deduct 1 point per metre error for each reported location greater than 5 metres in error from the measured position. Maximum deduction 9 points per target. (A target position reported with 14 metres or greater error would thus score zero).

Reporting Time

Score as a percentage of the fastest competitor’s time. Maximum of 12 points for achieving the shortest time, defined as the mission time from take-off to landing and including reporting the WP positions, divided by the number of successfully identifiedtargets (i.e. those targets reported within 5 metres accuracy).

Reporting Time score for Team B = 12 x S / B, where ‘S’ is shortest time, and ‘B’ is timefor Team B.

12

ID Alphanumeric Score additional 3 points per target for correctly identifying the alphanumeric. 12

Autonomous Operation

Score additional 19 points for completing the mission fully automatically from take-off to landing, and including automatic reporting of target position and alphanumeric.

19

Deduct 5 points for manual take-off.


Deduct 2 points per target for manual reporting of position and / or alphanumeric. An example of manual reporting would be the Pilot confirming the alphanumeric by watching the video stream from the UAS, either in real time or from post fight analysis.



Deduct 10 points if team is not ready for take-off within 10 minutes of arriving at the fightl-ine.

Maximum MissionTime


Maximum Flight-line Time

For each attempted mission, whether successful or not, the maximum time limit is 20minutes from a team being notified it is first in line for a mission fight to departing the fight-line area after the mission. Deduct 2 points for every minute over this 20 minute limit.

Maximum Score: 75


Issue 10 – 2017/18

5.2.3 Mission3:Endurance (75)*


Payload MassScore 8 points for correctly identifying the GPS co-ordinates of each of four Targets, to within 5 metres accuracy from measured target position. Score 4 points per ½ l of payload mass carried. UAS must complete at least one full lap to score points.

24*

Endurance Score 3 points per lap completed.18**

Lap TimeScore as a percentage of the fastest competitor’s time, with a maximum of 12 points for achieving the fastest average time, defined as mission time from take-off to landing divided by the number of successfully completed laps.

12

Iavigation Accuracy

Score 1 point per WP successfully navigated up to maximum 5 points. 5

Autonomous Operation

Halve Iavigation score for single extended breach of Geo-fence (> 5s).

16

Score zero Iavigation points for persistent or repeated breach of Geo-fence

Score additional 16 points for completing the mission fully automatically from take-off to landing.

Deduct 3 points for manual take-off.



Landing outPenalty of 5 points for failing to land back at the designated take-off and landing point.


Deduct 10 points if team is not ready for take-off within 10 minutes of arriving at the fight-line.

Maximum MissionTime


Maximum Flight-line Time

For each attempted mission, whether successful or not, the maximum time limit is 20minutes from a team being notified it is first in line for a mission fight to departing the fightline area after the mission. Deduct 2 points for every minute over this 20 minute limit.

Maximum Score:75 *

* Maximum Payload Mass score assumes 3kg payload mass carried. Iote that 3kg is not a maximum payload mass limit within the rules (though it may be challenging technically). Thus the Maximum Score could be greater than 75 if more than 3kg of payload mass were carried.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

** Maximum endurance score shown above assumes six laps, though this is not a limit within the rules. The practical limit may be dictated by the Maximum Mission Time. The maximum number of laps could thus be greater than six, with an Endurance score greater than 18.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

6 Prizes and Awards

There are a number of categories for which prizes will be awarded:

Prize Award Criteria

Design For the entrant showing greatest overall merit with regard to the systems engineering approach to the design process, conformance to the competition rules, the technical element of the design and underpinning analysis.

Payload Delivery Demonstrating the heaviest payload delivered intact, reliably and accurately. Highest score for Mission 1Payload Delivery, Integrity, Accuracy.

Endurance Demonstrating the best combination of endurance and lap time whilst carrying a substantial payload. Highest score for Mission 3.

Iavigation Accuracy Demonstrating consistently good navigation performance, without breaching the Geofence.

Autonomous Operations

For the entrant demonstrating the greatest degree of autonomy in operations, from take-off to touchdown.

Reconnaissance Demonstrating an efcient and effective capability in searching an area, locating and identifying targets. Highest score for Mission 2.

Innovation For the entrant showing the greatest degree of innovation in addressing the engineering challenges.

Safety and Airworthiness

For the entrant developing the best combination of a well-articulated safety case, with evidence that safety and airworthiness have been considered throughout the design and development stages, the UASexhibiting practical safety features, and demonstrating safe operation.

Manufacturing For the entrant with the best manufactured UAS, in terms of innovative use of materials, construction techniques and engineering practices, manufacturing quality, attention to detail, finish and aesthetics.

Business Proposition For the entrant with the most promising business case, refecting a well- articulated understanding of the market and good alignment of the UAS capabilities and cost projections with the target market.

Environmentally Friendly

For the entrant who best demonstrates attention through the design and development to minimising environmental impact, with measured energy usage during the Mission Flight, and good overall fight efciency.

Most Promise For the entrant which couldn’t quite make it all work on the day, but where the team showed most ingenuity, teamwork, resilience in the face of adversity, and a promising design for next year’s competition.

Grand Champion For the team scoring well in the Design, Flight Readiness and Flight Demonstration, and who most impressed the judges with overall excellence across all elements of the competition. The team with the highest overall score.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

Annex A - Missions A.1 Objective

Three separate missions must be fown, each testing different performance characteristics ofthe UAS which would be important for a humanitarian aid capability.

1. Payload Delivery – testing the UAS load capacity ability to carry and accurately deploy a number of payloads navigation around a preset course autonomous operations.

2. Reconnaissance – testing ability to search one or more areas and locate small targets in the shortest time autonomous operations.

3. Endurance – testing the UA endurance around several laps of a preset course UA load capacity teams’ knowledge of their UA’s performance.

The scoring criteria for these Missions is presented at Section 5.2.

A.2 General Points

A.2.1 Take-of:

Take-off shall be conducted within the designated take-off and landing box, into wind as far aspracticable. After take-off the system shall maintain steady controlled fight at any suitableheight (Note hetightr aee quoted tin feet Above Geound Level (AGL)), typically around 50 m – 120 m (20 ft -400 ft). Take-off under manual control with transition to automatic fight is permitted, though ahigher score will be given to automatic take-off.

The mission time starts when the team signal they are ready and the Flight Safety Ofcer givesclearance for take-off.

A.2.2 Landing:

The UAS shall return to and land at the designated take-off and landing zone. Transition tomanual control is permitted for landing, though a fully automatic landing will score morepoints. The mission is complete after the final payload delivery sortie, when the UAS comes to ahalt and the engine is stopped.

A.2.3 Navigation:

Each team will be provided with a map of the airfield, showing the Geofence boundary withinwhich the UA must remain at all times, together with any other no- fy zones. The map willprovide GPS co-ordinates for the Geofence vertices, the Waypoints (WPs) and the Target(s). Amission route will define the WP order. The UA should aim to fy directly overhead each WP, andthe accuracy of the navigation will be evaluated by analysis of the GPS data logger after thefight.

Points will be deducted for breach of the Geofence. At the Flight Safety Ofcer’s discretion, theFlight Termination System may be initiated upon such breach, or the team may be directed toland the UA as soon as it is safe.

A.2.4 Operating height:

All operating heights between 50 m – 120 m (20 ft - 400 ft) are valid within the allowable fyingzone. The UA must drop the payload from a minimum of 50 m (20 ft) height above ground, andcannot land to place the payload (in the case of Rotary Wing UAS). During transit phasesbetween the landing area to the target area, the UA shall maintain a safe height above ground.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

A.2.5 Timing :

With many teams fying multiple missions, it is essential for the smooth running of the eventthat teams are punctual with their timing, and do not over-run the allocated slot time.

To keep up the fying tempo, there will be at least two teams at the fightline at any one time, sothat if one team has to withdraw because of technical problems, another team is immediatelyready to fy.

From arriving at the fightline and being nominated first in line to fy a mission, a maximum of10 minutes is allowed for pre-fight preparation. Each mission is a maximum of 10 minutesduration, from take-off to landing with the UA stopped. Additionally an overall maximum timelimit of 20 minutes shall be strictly enforced from a team being notified it is first in line for amission fight to departing the fight-line area after the mission. Points will be deducted if theteam breaches these time limits. If a team cannot get the UAS ready within the 10 minuteallowance, it shall retire and request another mission slot time, which may be granted at thediscretion of the organizers.

A.3 Mission Descriptions

A.3.1 Mission 1: Payload Delivery

Carrying the heaviest possible payload mass, after take-off navigate around WP 1, 2, 3, 4, thendrop first payload on target. Then fy to WP5, back to target and drop second payload, repeatuntil all payloads dropped. After delivering the last payload, navigate around WP 5, 4, andreturn to the launch point to land. Figure A3 depicts an example Payload Delivery Mission.

A.3.2 Mission 2: Reconnaissance

Search, locate and identify four targets, of dimensions given at Figure A1 in Annex A, hiddensomewhere within two separate rectangular search areas. Each search area is roughly 40,000m2 in size or equivalent to a square 200 m x 200 m. Report back the GPS co-ordinates of eachtarget, by data link to operator. Identify and report back the Alpha-numeric character withineach target square. Figure A4 depicts an example Reconnaissance Mission.

A.3.3 Mission 3: Endurance

Team declares the mission payload mass, which is validated by the judges before the mission fight, also ensuring maximum all up mass limit not exceeded. Take-off, fy a prescribed 1 km course around the airfield for as many laps as possible up to a maximum of 6 laps and land at the designated landing point.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

A.4 Ground Marker Description

The ground marker shown below in Figure A1 is a red 25 cm x 25 cm central square,incorporating an alphanumeric code in white letters, approximately 15 cm high, within thesquare. To help identification of the ground marker, an 1 m x 1 m white border will surroundthe central area.

Figure A1: Ground Marker Dimensions.

A.5 Circuit of Castelloli Airfeld Site Plan and Typical Mission Figure A2 below shows the general layout of Circuit of Castelloli Airfield. Of note is theprominent 90 m high mast in the centre of the airfield which must be avoided. In general fyingoperations are conducted to the east and south of the mast.

Figure A3 below depicts a typical Payload Delivery mission, showing the routeing aroundwaypoints to the target.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

Figure A2: Circuit of Castelloli Airfield Site Plan and Typical Mission

Figure A3: Typical Payload Delivery Mission Scenario

NOTES of Figure A3:

In the example mission to the left, after departing the Take-Off zone the course goes via Waypoints 1, 2, 3, 4, then to the Target to drop the first payload. The UAS shall pass the correct side of the Waypoint.

Then out to and around Waypoint 5 and back to the Target to drop the second payload.

After dropping the second payload, the course routes back to the Runway via Waypoints 5 and 4 (course line not shown).

For this example the mission target time would be in the order of 140 seconds.

The actual course will differ from this example.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

Figure A4: Typical Reconnaissance Mission Scenario


Issue 10 – 2017/18

Annex B UAS Safety and Airworthiness Requirements This section presents the safety related requirements and guidance with which the UAS shall comply before being permitted to fy in the Demonstration Event.

B.1 General Safety Requirements

• The UA shall have a maximum Take-Off Mass (MTOM) of 6.9 kg or less

• The maximum airspeed of the UA in level fight shall not exceed 25 KIAS

• The design and construction of the UAS shall employ good design practice, with appropriate use of materials and components

• The design shall be supported by appropriate analysis to demonstrate satisfactory structural integrity, stability and control, fight and navigation performance, and reliability of safety critical systems.

B.2 Command and Control

• The UA shall be capable of manual override by the pilot during any phase of fight

• The Ground Control Station may display the UA position with reference to the airfield and any no-fy zones, though this is not mandated. In the absence of such live telemetry, the Judges’ and/ or Flight Safety Ofcer’s decision on boundary breaches is final.

B.3 Flight Termination

• The FTS requirements are defined at Section 3.14. The actions of the FTS shall aim to safely landthe UA as soon as possible after initiation and in a controlled and low energy descent.

• The FTS elements should be tested during the development, with evidence of correct andreliable functionality provided in the FRR.

• A Fail Safe check will demonstrate fight termination on the ground by switching off the data-link for 30 seconds and observing activation of the fight termination commands.

B.4 Design Safety Features

• Batteries used in the UA shall contain bright colours to facilitate their location in the event of a crash

• At least 25% of the upper, lower and each side surface shall be a bright colour to facilitate visibility in the air and in the event of a crash

• Any fuel / battery combination deemed high risk in the opinion of the judges may be disqualified.

B.5 Operation

Some important points about fying operations are noted below.

• The Flight Safety Ofcer shall have absolute discretion to refuse a team permission to fy, or toorder the termination of a fight in progress.

• Only teams issued with a ‘Permit to Test’ through the Scrutineering process, and a ‘Permit to Fly’through the Certification Test Flight, will be eligible to enter the Flying Demonstration stage

• Teams shall have appointed a BMFA ‘B’ rated pilot to operate the system during theCertification Flight Test and the Flying Demonstration. The pilot shall have had familiarization


Issue 10 – 2017/18

fying of the UAS prior to the Demonstration Event. Please note that the Organisers are not ableto provide a qualified pilot for Teams

• Iote the requirement at Section 3.12 for provision of a buddy box.

• The UA shall remain within Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) and no greater than 500m horizontallyfrom the Pilot, and remain below 460 m AGL

• The UA shall not be fown within 50 m of any person, vessel, vehicle or structure not under thecontrol of the Pilot during take-off or landing, however, the UA shall not be fown within 30 mof any person, unless that person is under the control of the Pilot2

• During the entire fight the UA shall remain in controlled fight and within the geofenceboundary of the Flying Zone

• Failure of the Pilot to recover promptly a UA appearing uncontrolled or departing from theFlying Zone, shall require activation of the FTS, either by the Pilot or at the direction of the FSO.

B.6 Ground Control Station

It is desirable but not mandated that the Ground Control Station should display the following information and be visible to the Operators, Flight Safety Ofcer and Judges:

• Current UA position on a moving map

• Local Airspace, including the Flying Zone

• AGL (QFE)

• Indicated Airspeed (kts)

• Information on UA Health.

B.7 Payload Carriage and Delivery

The Safety Case shall include demonstration by analysis and test, that the risk of inadvertent jettison of the Payload and subsequent injury to persons on the ground is acceptably low.

2 Air Iavigation Order, Articles 166 and 167


Issue 10 – 2017/18

Annex C GPS Tracker Installation and Operation The Quanum GPS Logger V2 with Backlit LCD Display NEO-6 U-Blox is to be provided toprovide a historical track of competitors in the Smart Moto / Bike / Drone Challenge. Because ofits accuracy, small size and light weight it is ideal for providing historical navigation data inUnmanned Aerial Systems. The tracker will provide position (Lat & Long), Altitude, Date andTime. In addition it creates a log of estimated accuracy and satellite status throughout the fight.

The GPS Logger is a stand-alone device that packs the power of a U-BLOX IEO-6 GPS receiver,and records everything from distance traveled, start and end positions, UTC time stamps,course and speed…and the infamous MAX speed the logger reached. The data can be viewedon the integrated backlit LCD or the IEMA data can be downloaded to a PC and plotted out onmap sites such as Google Earth. To save weight the logger gets its power from a spare channelfrom your receiver so no additional battery is needed.

Instrument position

The tracker shall be positioned on the upper surface of the aircraft with a clear view of the skyabove. It may be mounted internally or externally, but there must be a 140 degree field of viewabove the tracker around the full 360 degree azimuth which is unobscured by metallic orcarbon fibre parts. A cover of fabric, plastic, foam or GRP will not affect the reception. In thecase of rotary platforms, avoid placing the tracker under the sweep of the rotor(s). If teamscannot meet this specification they should contact the organisers to discuss the requirementsfurther.

Instrument fxation

The instrument should be secured to the aircraft by means of straps or held firmly in place inan enclosure, while permitting ready access to the two buttons and status LCD Display. It issuggested that a polystyrene “jacket” would provide an ideal method of locating the trackerfirmly within the structure. Dimensions are provided overleaf.

Operation on Day of Competition

When first switched on in a new position the tracker may take up to 30 minutes to create an upto date almanac. The RII staff will run the trackers on site for a suitable time before they areissued. The lock-on time for competitors will be between 4 and 32 seconds, thereafter thetracker will operate quite independently. As the information contained within the tracker couldbe a deciding feature of the competition the RII staff will be available to assist in priming thetrackers throughout. The trackers will be collected on landing and the data downloadedimmediately. The data is presented both in tabular format and a superimposed track on asuitable map (Memory Map aviation chart or OS map). Downloaded data can be made availableto competitors at the end of the competition.

Before each competition fight teams will be handed a live tracker by RII staff. It is theirresponsibility to:

◦ Attach the tracker securely to the aircraft and

◦ Once the tracker is attached, check that the LCD display on the tracker indicate it is logging.If it does not appear to be logging, teams should notify a member of RII staff but shouldnot attempt to operate the tracker unless instructed to do so.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

Tracker description

A description of the device operation is given here for information only, and a diagram of thetracker with dimensions, mass, and status LCD display descriptions is provided below. There arefour modes which you scroll through using buttons on the side. The modes are

1. Iavigation - current location information.

2. Logging - basically start the logging.

3. View Data.

4. Connect to PC.

The tracker runs on a continuous data loop lasting the power off GPS/UAV. The plan for theChallenge is that the RII staff will hand over a live tracker leaving the competitors to position iton the vehicle and double-check the status in the LCD display. Teams should not attempt tooperate the trackers unless instructed to do so.

Tech Specs of GPS:

Receiver: IEO-6M U-BLOX

Max Speed Recording: 1000km/h

Sensitivity: -161 dBm (Tracking & Iavigation)

Accuracy: 2.5 m (GPS), 2.0 m (SBAS)

Cold Start: 27 s approx.

Iavigation: UTC date and time, geographic coordinates, time, speed, course

Logging: geographic coordinates, date and time, speed, course, distance (up to 100km)

Logging time: >1000 hours

Logging OI/OFF Control: Manual, RC (1520us)

Voltage: 4.5V ~ 6.5V

Current: 80mA typical

Size: 24 x 77 x 18mm

Weigh: 43g


Issue 10 – 2017/18

Annex D General Guidance for Teams This section offers a few hints and tips to help teams achieve a successful and competitive entry. This is in part based on feedback from the previous competitions.

D.1 Concept Selection The UA may be designed to carry a single payload, in which case return to the landing site forreplenishment will be required to drop a second payload, possibly incurring time penalties.Alternatively it may be designed to carry two payloads, allowing delivery of payloads to beaccomplished in a single mission.

Rotary Wing, UAS(R) and Fixed Wing UAS(A) each have their advantages and drawbacks. TheUAS(R) may descend to drop the payload onto the ground from a low height accurately andwithout damage, but may be slower in transit to the target area, and may have reduced payloadcapacity compared to the UAS(A), requiring two sorties to complete the two payload drops TheUAS(A) pose a greater challenge in achieving a direct hit on the target than for the UAS(R).

The UAS(A) may require a more sophisticated payload protection or retardation system tominimise impact damage compared to the UAS(R). Alternatively it may be decided from lookingat the scoring, that some damage to the payload will be tolerated and traded against theadditional complexity and weight of a protection system.

Either electric or internal combustion engines are permitted. Iote there are marks for quietand environmentally friendly operations.

The assessment panel will be looking for teams to explain their rationale in making their systemdesign decisions and trade-offs.

D.2 Programme Planning Make allowance for things to go wrong – the aircraft will crash on the test fight and need to berebuilt. Test subsystems early and in parallel. Don’t rely on it all being OK on the day – it neveris!

D.3 Construction Quality Do ensure that mechanical systems such as pushrods, control linkages, propellers are properlylocked, for example with locknuts or wire locking, and bolts/pins inserted from above (gravityaided), to avoid them failing during fight.

Ensure wiring and fuel lines are retained securely, so as not to interfere with fight controls orfasteners.

Ensure that control linkages operate with minimal lateral load / moments.

Get your UAS inspected during build by an experienced aero-modeller to help with constructiondetails and best practise.

Build a storage box for your UAS to avoid handling damage during transport, and to supportthe UAS during preparation / test / maintenance.

D.4 Radio Equipment

Iote the mandatory requirement for 2.4GHz band, Spread Spectrum compliant systems, andrange of 1 km. A good quality receiver is key to ensuring reliable reception at longer ranges.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

Iote the requirement to bring the buddy box specified at Section 3.1.6.

A range check shall be carried out as part of your system testing prior to the DemonstrationEvent, and you are reminded allow for the possibility that the RF environment at theDemonstration Event may be more hostile than at your home field.

D.5 Autonomous / Automatic operation The competition mission will require a fight firstly in manual mode, and then assuming all goeswell, in automatic mode. It will also test the switch from manual to automatic, and vice-versa.When testing your UAS pay particular attention to the switch between manual and automaticmode, to ensure the behaviour of the UAS is as expected.

D.6 Payload Specifcation and Deployment Iote that your design will need to accommodate the slight variability in dimensions ofcommercially available 1kg bags of four.

Remember that wind speed and direction must be allowed for when calculating the payloadrelease point.

D.7 Demonstration Event Preparation Be organized and do be prepared for breakages. Do bring a workbench so that you can safelydo maintenance and repairs. Bring plenty of tools and spare parts for your UAS. Ensure thatbatteries can be changed easily.

There will be limited time in the schedule allowed for testing, so plan to use your time wisely.Refueling and engine run-ups in the pits will be allowed, but only in a segregated area under thesupervision of IMechE staff, and availability of slots may be limited.

It is your responsibility to dispose of your rubbish bring a suitable bag to handle damagedbatteries etc. There is no facility provided for this on site.

D.8 The Route to a Permit to Fly

For background reading on the wider regulations applicable to UAS, teams are encouraged toconsult the AESA for UAS design and operation, and its regulatory framework which isdownloadable for free from the AESA website:

http://www.seguridadaerea.gob.es/media/4389070/ley_18_2014_de_15_octubre.pdf

See also the Order of air navigation of each country of origin. But like we're fying in Catalonia,we will consider the legal framework Spain.

AESA - State Aviation Safety Agency is responsible for regulating operations with drones up to150 kg. To drones above this limit, it has established rules at European level, and the agencyresponsible for regulating these aircraft is EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency)

Link of Order:

http://www.seguridadaerea.gob.es/lang_castellano/cias_empresas/trabajos/rpas/default.aspx


http://www.seguridadaerea.gob.es/media/4389070/ley_18_2014_de_15_octubre.pdf

http://www.seguridadaerea.gob.es/lang_castellano/cias_empresas/trabajos/rpas/default.aspx

Issue 10 – 2017/18

Annex E - Document Templates and Guidance This Annex provides guidance on the structure and content of the PDR, CDR and FRRdeliverables. Teams are also encouraged to refect on the Engineering Challenges summarizedin Section 2.4, which indicates what the Judges are looking for throughout the competition.

E.1 Preliminary Design Review The Preliminary Design phase culminates with the Preliminary Design Review, a written report of no more than 15 pages in the body of the report, plus figures and supporting appendices. The suggested structure and content should include:

Introduction

Team Details

• Chart showing the team organisation and roles

Project Management

• Project plan with the main activities, lead times and dependencies

• Table summarising the project risks and their mitigation.

Requirement Capture

• Summary of UAS Requirements, including regulatory requirements,

Concept Selection

• The Systems Engineering approach adopted to develop compliant solutions

• Discussion of the design drivers, the concept generation process, concept optionsconsidered, the trade studies undertaken to choose between Fixed Wing vs Rotary Wing,and the factors infuencing the downselect to the chosen concept

• UAS overall layout & description with a three-view scale drawing

Performance Calculations

• Preliminary aerodynamic, structural and performance calculations supporting the initialsizing, basic stability and control calculations, together with a Weight and Balanceestimate

Weight Budget

Cost Budget

Safety

• An overview of the safety risks, presented in a table of hazards and mitigating designfeatures

• A short desciption of the approach to RF compliance

• A short description of the safety features incorporated to mitigate the risks such as thefight termination system

Design Description

• Diagram showing the preliminary system architecture and data fow for the navigation and mission control, fight control, vision sensor and the design for automatic operation


Issue 10 – 2017/18

• Brief Functional Description, and the rationale for selection of each of the proposed systems, including Airframe, Propulsion, Flight Controls, Iavigation & Mission Control, Sensors, Image Processing, Autonomy / Automatic Operation, Payload Carriage and Delivery system, Flight Termination System.

Test Plan

• A short summary of the approach to ‘Certification and Qualification’, which couldinclude design and analysis evidence to be generated in the next phase, and the outlineelements of the test programme to demonstrate the integrity of the system.

Commercial Considerations

• An initial outline of the possible commercial use for the system, either at the 7kg scaleor scaled up to a larger system

• A summary of the estimated UAS construction costs.

Guidance on how the PDR Submission will be assessed

The assessment panel will be looking for a number of factors including:

• Demonstration of a sound systems engineering approach to meeting the design requirements

• A structured design process adopted by the team, and how the derived performance requirements are developed for each of the sub-systems such as wing (or rotor), airframe, propulsion, control, navigation, payload handling etc

• Extent of Innovation in the Outline Design

• Adherence to the rules

• Depth and extent of underpinning engineering analysis

• Design and planning to meet safety and airworthiness requirements

• Evidence of sound project management, planning, budgeting

• Overall Quality of PDR submission.

Conclusions

References

Appendices

Typically appendices could include:

• Summary of the UAS requirements, and the derived system requirements

• Background work supporting the main conclusions and studies

• Concept options considered

• Supporting calculations

• Project Gantt Chart

• Risk Register.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

E.2 Critical Design Review Submission

A key output towards the end of the Detail Design phase is the Critical Design ReviewSubmission, a written report of no more than 25 pages supported by a maximum of 5 pages ofdiagrams and appendices. The suggested structure and content should include:

Introduction

Changes from PDRIote any update to the information presented in the PDR.

▪ Team organisation and roles

▪ Project plan including main activities, lead times and dependencies

▪ Project risks and their mitigation

▪ System concept

▪ Performance, weight and cost

Detailed Design and Manufacturing Description

o UAS overall layout & description with a three-view drawing showing dimensions and centre of gravity summary of the rationale for the layout and key design features

o Description of the Aero-mechanical Design, including where appropriate the materials and construction techniques for each of the elements. This should include:

▪ Arrangement of fying surfaces and major components

▪ Air frame structural design including consideration off light, ground,

▪ handling and transport requirements

▪ Aero dynamic design and performance, including Stability and Control

▪ Control actuation system providing roll, pitch and yaw control

▪ Propulsion system

▪ Fuel system / propulsion battery

▪ Undercarriage

▪ Payload Carriage and Release System

▪ Payload protection system

▪ Flight Termination System.

▪ Description of the Avionics, Mission System and Electrical Power

▪ Design, including:

▪ Mission Planning and Performance analysis

▪ Autopilot design and automatic operation

▪ Avionics, Iavigation and Mission Control System

▪ Sensors andI mage Processing System

▪ Radio Control System, including Data Link and Telemetry


Issue 10 – 2017/18

▪ Ground Control Station.

▪ Brief description of any consideration given to Support equipment,

▪ such as test equipment, handling or storage fixtures

▪ Analysis and Modeling. Provide a summary of the analysis and test undertaken to support the design and development, e.g.

▪ Structural performance

▪ Aero dynamic performance

▪ Payload release dynamics

▪ Iavigation and Mission performance

Qualifcation Test Plan

Summary of the proposed test plan for the UAS, which may include physical testing supportedby modeling, and including:

▪ Structural testing

▪ Subsystem testing

▪ Flight testing.

Safety Case

The Safety Case should show an understanding of the main regulations relevant to this UAS. Itshould present the argument demonstrating the airworthiness of the UAS, summarising themain safety risks and their mitigation, with arguments supported by evidence from design,analysis or test.

One of the mitigations to a number of safety risks is the incorporation of the Flight TerminationSystem (FTS). The safety case should describe how the FTS mitigates each of the identified risksthat it is designed to address.

The approach to compliance of the RF requirements should be described.

The safe operation of the UAS should be discussed, in addition to the technical design.

Verifcation & Validation Register

A short description of the approach to Verification & Validation supported by a detail table ofresults.

Conclusions

Guidance on how the CDR Submission will be assessed

The assessment panel will be looking for:

▪ Factors as for PDR plus:

▪ Technical assessment of UAS Detail Design

▪ Integrity and depth of design data and supporting analyses

▪ Design and demonstration of key safety features such as FTS

▪ Extent of scratch design vs. COTS procurement


Issue 10 – 2017/18

▪ Overall Quality of CDR submission.

E.3 Flight Readiness Review SubmissionThe Manufacture and Test stage culminates with the Flight Readiness Review Submission,comprising:

• A video no longer than 4 minutes in duration showing evidence of the test fying undertaken

• A statement of any changes introduced since the CDR

• A confirmation that any Corrective Actions required by the judges from the CDR

have been fully addressed

• Confirmation of the team Pilot and the compliance of Pilot Qualifications with the requirements of Section 3.3.4

• A signed declaration by a suitably qualified Chartered Engineer and Member (or Fellow) of a Professional Engineering Institution, that in their opinion:

• The UAS appears compliant with the requirements noted in Section 3

• The design and build quality is satisfactory

• Safety and Airworthiness aspects have been addressed satisfactorily, with appropriate fail safe mechanisms and a risk register completed

• The system has been tested, both by modelling and demonstration to evaluate the performance and reliability

• The team members preparing and operating the UAS are suitably competent to ensure safe operations.

A ‘Permit to Test’ will be issued by the Flight Safety Ofcer for teams that submit a satisfactory Flight Readiness Review, and also satisfactorily complete the scrutineering on the first day of the Demonstration Event. An amber sticker, signed by the FSO shall be applied to the UA denoting that it has been granted a Permit to Test.

Guidance on how the FRR Submission will be assessed

The assessment panel will be looking for evidence in the FRR Video about the extent and rigour of testing to demonstrate the performance and safety features of the UAS.


Issue 10 – 2017/18

Annex F Guidance on Autopilot Selection To help teams with the selection of COTS components, this Annex provides a list of potentiallysuitable autopilots, compiled as of August 2017. It is not mandatory for teams to choose one ofthese, and it remains the teams’ responsibility to ensure that the autopilot is fit for purpose andsuitable for their UAS application.

Name Website Type

IXT AutoPilot http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/n xt-autopilot-v-01-beta

Open Source

ArduPilot http://ardupilot.com/ Open Source

Pixhawk – Cube 2.1 http://pixhawk.org Open Source

Pixhawk, PX4 FMU, Arsov AUAV-X2, APM2 etc

http://pixhawk.org/choice Open Source

Lisa/MX V2.1 Autopilot http://1bitsquared.com/products/lisa-m-autopilot Open Source

Arduino UIO R3 UAV V2 https://www.sparkfun.com/products/1 1021 Open Source

Atto Pilot http://www.attopilotinternational.com Open Source

Piccolo II Piccolo IAIO Piccolo SL http://www.cloudcaptech.com/product s/auto-pilots Commercial. Full Integrated solution.

Paparazzi https://wiki.paparazziuav.org/wiki/Mai n_Page https://wiki.paparazziuav.org

Albatros ttp://appliedaeronautics.com/Albatro ss-SP-UAV-Kit_p_17.html

Commercial. The Albatross UAV kits can takeoff, fy and land autonomously via predefined fight paths.

MicroPilot http://www.micropilot.com/ Commercial

Auav EZI-IAV http://www.auav.net/ELECTROIICS.html

Rotomotion http://www.rotomotion.com/about.ht ml Open Source, for HELIS

PIav http://www.hubner.net/pnav-autopilot Open Source/Hardware

IgUAVP http://ng.uavp.ch/FrontPage Open Source for Quads

CC3D/OpenPilot https://www.openpilot.org Open Source Very Cheap Sub (20€)

FY 41-AP Panda AP117 http://www.feiyu-tech.com/product- en.php?id=32 Commercial – Low Cost Sub 100€

SC2 SC2R http://www.skycircuits.com/autopilots Commercial, Academic, Research and Development Use

Flight Management Systems, Avionics/Autopilot - SIAP®

http://www.bbsr.co.uk/products/Custo mised-UAS Commercial


barcelona smartdrone challenge 2018smartdronechallenge.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/... ·...

Documents