Publicerad den Lämna en kommentar

What are the odds of not getting an accurate position?

[SPONSORED CONTENT] The odds of NOT getting an accurate position in forests and canyons are negligible with JAVAD TRIUMPH-LS Plus. JAVAD receivers use a patented multi-engine RTK system that automatically compares the results to converge on a solution of higher quality based on the best measurements.

Find out in this video how the JAVAD TRIUMPH-LS Plus delivers reliable and repeatable positions in challenging environments.

Learn more.

This video is sponsored content by JAVAD GNSS.

Publicerad den Lämna en kommentar

US Army Corps of Engineers contracts Aero-Graphics for surveying

logo: Aero-GraphicsThe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, has contracted with Aero-Graphics for photogrammetric and lidar surveying and mapping for the next five years. Aero-Graphics is a 56-year-old geospatial services company headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.

The $16 million contract is an indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ), firm-fixed-price contract.

The services requested are for photogrammetric mapping and related surveys, as well as the preparation of maps for advance planning, design, real property, construction, land-use and land-type monitoring, and analysis for various projects.  

“Being awarded the USACE St. Louis District contract is an honor, especially because we will support the Center of Expertise for Photogrammetric Mapping,” said Casey Francis, Aero-Graphics co-president.  “Their focus on geospatial rapid response and technical proficiency is directly aligned with Aero-Graphics’  unique process. Our entire team looks forward to supporting this exciting contract.” 

Francis added, “Our mantra is ‘agile responses to ever-changing environments.’ We look forward to demonstrating our unique abilities to the St. Louis District, enabling them to accomplish their mission of securing our nation, energizing our economy, and reducing disaster risk.”

New business development specialist hired

Angela Arriaga

Angela Arriaga

In other company news, Aero-Graphics appointed Angela Arriaga as its new business development specialist. In her role, Arriaga will be responsible for expanding the company’s client base.

Arriaga comes to Aero-Graphics with more than 10 years of experience in geospatial, aviation, processing and surveying. “Angela has a strong background in operations management in lidar and ortho imagery,” Francis said.

“Aero-Graphics has always been a staple in this industry with an outstanding reputation and a commitment to excellence,” Arriaga said. “It’s exciting to be a part of this incredible team. The leadership is fully committed to professionalism, passion and enthusiasm for the work. I am looking forward to help continue its expansion and the success of our customers.”

Publicerad den Lämna en kommentar

Mapping the original stones along the Mason-Dixon line

Mason and Dixon were pioneers in bringing geodetic astronomy to the American colonies. Through the efforts of the Mason and Dixon Line Preservation Partnership, we can promote this scientific contribution along with the placement of the boundary stones.

Ask surveyors why they became engaged in the profession and why they had continued with it, most will centralize on one aspect: working outside. A career that allowed them to work outside in various environments, solving problems, and being part of a solution is typically the main answer they give.

Depending on the task at hand, a day in the field surveying can take one to several places, including urban/suburban neighborhoods, construction sites, and agricultural/wooded farmland.

View from Mason Dixon Stone #95 looking toward Maryland (Image: Tim Burch)

View from Mason Dixon Stone #95 looking toward Maryland. (Image: Tim Burch)

My entry into surveying was no different. From residential sites, condominium surveys, boundary and topographic surveys, and construction layout, my early years in surveying covered a lot of territory. While my career eventually took me out of the field and into an office managerial role, and now into leading a professional association, it does not erase the roots of one’s surveying knowledge and experience. Opportunities to be part of the field exercises of a survey, especially a boundary survey, are typically rare and subject to time constraints.

Having spent all my life in the flat topography of Illinois and surrounded by farm fields and urban sprawl, the ability to see for miles over the various horizons was the norm. Coupling these conditions with the Public Land Survey System (PLSS) and use of GNSS technology, it makes for a great environment for the professional surveyor to go about his or her work.

However, the United States covers many areas and contains distinct types of terrain, ecosystems and demographic groups that provide challenges to the surveyor. While I assumed moving from Illinois to the mid-Atlantic region would require adaptation, an opportunity to help retrace and inventory a significant part of American history provided me with an eye-opening experience. It also helped me appreciate the legacy of our surveying forefathers.

A small title dispute

Even in the 17th and 18th centuries, disagreeing title descriptions to common lands was an issue. Reviewing two conflicting legal descriptions describing adjacent land boundaries is the basis of this survey exercise, and thus began a symbolic establishment of a famous boundary line that would lead to political and demographic ramifications in later years.

Here is the situation:

1632: King Charles I grants to Cecilius Calvert (second Lord Baltimore), a royal charter for establishing a new colony north of Virginia to a point “which lieth under the Fortieth degree of north latitude” and westward to the source of the Potomac.

1681: King Charles II (eldest son of Charles I) grants William Penn a royal charter of land between 43° N and a line extending westward from “a Circle drawn at twelve miles distance from New Castle…” to “the beginning of the fortieth degree….”

1682: King Charles II grants to William Penn an additional grant in the Delaware peninsula, which Lord Baltimore claimed.

1685: King Charles II directed his Board of Trade and Plantations to issue an edict ordering that territory to be divide equally, the western half going to Baltimore. This order endorsed Calvert’s claim of a boundary line being 19 miles to the north and providing him claim to Philadelphia. Part of the edict placed a burden on Calvert of providing a survey to authenticate the claim, but the survey was not completed. The boundary would eventually be established 19 miles to the south.

1731-1732: Charles Calvert, the fifth Lord Baltimore, petitioned King George II for help in demarcating the final boundary. He agreed on the final boundaries; however, a commission created to study the legal claims failed to deliver instructions in which a survey would be based upon. Calvert disputed its interpretation and refused to implement the arrangements.

1730s: Ongoing conflict over the disputed land claimed by both people from Pennsylvania and Maryland resulted in Cresap’s War, named after the land agent, Thomas Cresap, hired by Calvert to settle new development. In 1736, Cresap was accused of murder, arrested by Pennsylvania officials and his housed burned was burned down.

1750: After years of bitter controversy, British Lord Chancellor Hardwicke ruled that the southern boundary of Pennsylvania should be a line running westward from the point at which the line dividing the Delaware peninsula was tangential to a circle with a radius of 12 miles from the center of Newcastle.

After 100+ years of boundary disputes and deadly confrontations, in 1760 Frederick Calvert was directed by the English monarch to accept the terms of the 1732 treaty.

Penn-Calvert Land Grant Agreement Image: National Archives

Penn-Calvert Land Grant Agreement. (Image: National Archives)

The unfilled challenge, however, was to commission a survey to establish the terms of the agreed-upon boundary. Given that the final location of the Pennsylvania/Maryland border was geographically based (approximate latitude of N 39°43’20”), the surveyors chosen to establish this line would have to be knowledgeable in such calculations.

Finding qualified surveyors in the colonies turned into a bigger challenge than first considered, so the monarchy assigned two surveyors from the Royal Society (full name: Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge). Enter Jeremiah Dixon (surveyor) and Charles Mason (astronomer) — the field party charged with tackling this monumental deed.

Charles Mason – Survey Calculations (Image: National Archives)

The survey calculations of Charles Mason. (Image: National Archives)

We know them by name for the lines they established in fulfilling the requirements of the boundary agreement, but how they accomplished their task remains a mystery to most. Previous exercises using geographical position determination was used in the sailing and shipping industries with lesser degrees of accuracy. This assignment would require higher levels of accuracy and precision, hence the reason for calling upon Dixon and Mason for the task.

By using geodetic astronomy, they were able to determine accurate (for the period) geographical positions of latitude. Geodetic astronomy is the art and science for determining, by astronomical observations, the positions of points on the earth and the azimuths of the geodetic lines connecting such points. It relies on spherical astronomy, using calculations and techniques developed by the Greeks in the second century A.D.

Besides the knowledge of performing the necessary calculations, the duo would also need to possess instruments to gather the accurate astronomical information. The survey of the agreed-upon line was to be established upon a constant line of latitude. The survey procedures would require turning angles (azimuths) from their meridian westwardly with accuracy not yet utilized in the New World.

Both instruments used for the project were built by John Bird, a well-respected instrument maker in London. The equipment consisted of a zenith sector, capable of measuring to two arc seconds. No field azimuth instrument of this accuracy existed in that era. They also brought a converted telescope/level set up for surveying purposes. This transit has no divided horizontal “plate,” only a tangent screw for slow azimuth motion.

In addition to the instruments and astronomical tables from Greenwich and Paris, the duo relied on a highly precise clock for marking time by the second, which was quite advanced for the period.

Dixon and Mason spent the better part of 1766-67 establishing the agreed-upon line using astronomy via the Bird instruments and taking copious notes documenting their calculations and survey conditions.

Jeremiah Dixon – Field Notes (Image: National Archives)

Field notes from Jeremiah Dixon. (Image: National Archives)

The markers set along the way —stone monuments chiseled back in England with demarcations — were quite accurately established despite the primitive nature of equipment and methodology for the survey. Mason and Dixon laid out the 233-mile long “West Line” in short segments, following the latitude arc of approximately N39°43’20” for 233 miles westward.

Old line versus new technology

In 2020, the Maryland Geological Survey (MGS) and the Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission (PHMC), members of the Mason and Dixon Line Preservation Partnership, began a new initiative to inventory these historic markers and submit them for inclusion into the National Registry. If accepted, the monuments will be part of a program established to help protect and preserve these physical boundary markers that define the boundary between the two states.

Part of the inventory has been the recovery and position confirmation by volunteer surveyors from the Maryland Society of Surveyors (MSS) and the Pennsylvania Society of Land Surveyors (PSLS). Using a geographic information system (GIS) app designed and implemented by the Maryland Geological Survey (MGS), volunteer retracers capture significant attributes about each monument.

While reestablishing the latitude/longitude of the recovered monuments with a smartphone or handheld GPS receiver is sufficient, several volunteers have used high-accuracy surveying equipment to determine a monument’s position.

Incredibly, the variation in the location of a given monument is well within reasonable tolerances from the originally intended installation. Also, because of GNSS technology, we now know more about continental drift. Because of this additional knowledge, 250+ years of tectonic plate movement should be considered when making these positional comparisons.

It should be noted that these monuments are a critical component of the boundary between states, and therefore must be considered senior to many other survey corners set after them. We cannot get lost in the sentimental aspect of recovering the monuments and not acknowledge the fact these points are the gospel when it comes to defining these state boundaries.

A Midwesterner in a ‘foreign’ land

My surveying career, as noted above, was solely in a state that is 200 years old, based upon the PLSS, and does not carry the history of the Mason-Dixon era of line establishment. So, when I was presented with the opportunity to join fellow surveying professionals from Maryland and Pennsylvania in recovering Mason-Dixon monuments for the inventory, I found it an easy event to join.

The planned meeting spot was a local fast food place at 8 a.m. on a sunny Saturday. Being it was in a small town, there were several groups meeting for their normal Saturday coffee klatches. Hearing a group mention “surveying,” I found my opening to identify myself as a fellow surveyor. After opening pleasantries, we settled into a game plan for recovering the targeted monuments for the day.

Planning a day of stone monument recovery (Photo: Tim Burch)

Planning a day of stone monument recovery along the Mason-Dixon line. (Photo: Tim Burch)

We settled on our assignments and enthusiastically went about our way. My partner for the day was Eric Gladhill, a Pennsylvania professional surveyor and veteran of Mason-Dixon monument retracement. In addition to his volunteer work, he has also authored several articles and a book on his surveying experiences, so it was quickly evident that we were in for a good day.

The first monument was not difficult to get to, and seeing it nearly brought a tear to my eye. Here before me was my first sighting of a Mason-Dixon monument stone, and it was simply amazing. Standing there admiring this 250+ year old stone, hand cut and carved in England and brought here by ship to be specifically placed on this line, I could not help but realize the importance of this monument.

This line, and these stones, were the culmination of two land grants that disagreed with each other more than 400 years ago. We were standing in the same location as a large survey party once did, where they observed the stars to determine an accurate position and directed axmen to clear the untamed forest to establish this important line. While it was a warm and sunny day, it gave me a chill to know we were following in the footsteps of our surveying forefathers.

Mason Dixon Stone #98 – My first recovery! (Photo: Tim Burch)

Mason Dixon Stone #98 – My first recovery! (Photo: Tim Burch)

We continued our way and recovered six more monuments, including a crown stone. Crown stones were placed at 5-mile intervals. The detail in the carvings for most of the monuments was noticeably clear, and is a testament to the craftsmanship of the era’s stonecutters.

Mason Dixon Stone #95 – “Crown Stone” (Photo: Tim Burch)

Mason Dixon Stone #95, a crown stone. (Photo: Tim Burch)

While locating these historic monuments, were felt we were standing on hallowed ground. The location of this line was important enough that people, both indigenous and settlers, fought for the right to build their lives there.

This was also a line that would be the site of many battles during the Civil War. Observing these monuments drove home the fact that surveyors play important roles in establishing land ownership both today as well as almost 300 years ago.

Mason Dixon Stone #93 – Maryland side marking (Photo: Tim Burch)

Mason Dixon Stone #93, a Maryland side marking. (Photo: Tim Burch)

Mason and Dixon were pioneers in bringing geodetic astronomy to the American colonies. Their work has provided inspiration for future generations of geospatial professionals, yet most of the public does not know about that portion of their contribution. Hopefully, through the efforts of the “Mason and Dixon Line Preservation Partnership,” we can promote this scientific contribution of Mason and Dixon along with the placement of the boundary stones.

My heartfelt thanks go out to Eric along with Wayne Aubertin and Rob Kundrick (Appalachian Chapter of the Maryland Society of Surveyors) for allowing me to join them for this task. They gave me a chance to be a true surveyor again and connect the past with the future.

Publicerad den Lämna en kommentar

Safran develops inertial micro-sensor strategy

An example of a MEMS. (Photo: Safran Colibrys)

An example of a MEMS. (Photo: Safran Colibrys)

Safran Electronics & Defense is taking a major step forward in its inertial navigation strategy by grouping two subsidiaries, Safran Colibrys (Switzerland) and the recently acquired Sensonor (Norway,) under a single banner, Safran Sensing Technologies.

The similarities in expertise, market position, customers and technologies result in clear synergy between these two companies, which produce accelerometers, gyrometers and inertial measurement units (IMUs). The creation of Safran Sensing Technologies shows Safran’s commitment to developing its micro-sensor business through these two companies.

The STIM380H inertial measurement unit. (Photo: Sensonor)

The STIM380H inertial measurement unit. (Photo: Sensonor)

The goal is to jointly offer a wider and comprehensive range of inertial technologies including vibrating sensors, optics and micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) for applications in aeronautics, defense, space and other industries.

The two subsidiaries have already delivered more than 20 million MEMS sensors to the aeronautics, defense, space, transport, mobility and industry sectors. For example, MEMS are used in the control accelerometers of automobile airbags, in high temperature accelerometers for guiding drill heads, and in seismic sensors measuring the structural health of buildings or civil engineering works. They are also used in IMUs for civil, military and space vehicles.

This change is part of a broader Safran Electronics & Defense strategy designed to strengthen the company’s position in the positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) market.

The two entities have been renamed Safran Sensing Technologies Norway AS and Safran Sensing Technologies Switzerland SA, respectively.

Publicerad den Lämna en kommentar

Tekever launches AR3 hot-swappable VTOL and integrated SAR

The AR3 maritime surveillance drone, usually launched horizontally, can be launched vertically with attachable propellers. (Photo Tekever)

The AR3 maritime surveillance drone, usually launched horizontally, can be launched vertically with attachable propellers. (Photo Tekever)

Tekever, a European maritime surveillance provider, has unveiled a new version of its AR3 unmanned aerial system (UAS). The AR3 now has a “hot-swappable” vertical-takeoff-and-landing (VTOL) capability, able to switch from horizontal launch to vertical. It also now has integrated synthetic aperture radar (SAR).

Tekever made the announcement at AUVSI Xponential 2022 in Orlando, Florida. The company specializes in maritime surveillance services that deliver actionable real-time intelligence. The AR3 is a shipborne UAS designed to support multiple types of maritime and land-based missions up to 16 hours. With the upgrade, the AR3 becomes more operationally flexible, the company said.

AR3 Hot-Swappable VTOL with SAR integrated from Tekever on Vimeo.

“Users no longer have to choose between having pure fixed-wing assets for longer endurance missions, or fixed-wing VTOL assets for more challenging deployment conditions,” explained Ricardo Mendes, Tekever CEO. “The AR3 combines both capabilities and provides users with the ability to decide the configuration just moments before takeoff.”

The newly added SAR provides the AR3 with a vastly greater operational range, and the ability to effectively detect, recognize and identify targets under any weather condition. Covering more than 20,000 square nautical miles per mission, the new AR3 is the suitable for wide-area surveillance missions.

“Our SAR, which we named Gamasar in honor of the Portuguese navigator Vasco da Gama, is designed and built by Tekever specifically to provide our customers with capabilities that are typically only available through much larger systems,” Mendes said. “With an extremely reduced logistics footprint, the unprecedented VTOL flexibility and the unique capabilities provided by Gamasar, the new AR3 is a game changer that provides our customers with tremendous value and cost effectiveness.”

Publicerad den Lämna en kommentar

Auterion delivers new high-precision UAV mapping capabilities

Screenshot: Auterion

Screenshot: Auterion

Auterion has introduced new capabilities for high-precision mapping missions and automated, end-to-end data workflows to make mapping more efficient, reliable and powerful across industries.

Unveiled at AUVSI Xponential 2022, updates to the Auterion OS serve enterprises with diverse use cases that need component and payload flexibility, alongside a centralized and streamlined software workflow.

Advantages for customers include:

  • Availability of precise mapping data in real time and automated processing that enables fast decision-making, saving time, ensuring consistency and reducing human errors.
  • Standardized process across any Auterion-powered vehicles, bringing an improved user experience, reducing training time, and affording easy scaling of operations.
  • Connectivity that enables automated end-to-end workflows with no need for manual data transfer, and integration with third-party data-processing software such as Esri Site Scan or Propeller.

“The mapping and workflow features included in this latest release of Auterion’s software focus on use cases from our enterprise customers,” said Markus Achtelik, vice president of engineering at Auterion. “We’re making sure that workflows are thoughtfully designed to meet customer needs and that the data they require is collected, automatically processed and streamlined through Auterion’s software platform for immediate use and longer term analysis.”

Auterion’s new platform capabilities are achieved through the enhancement of tightly integrated components. For example, the ground control app provides precise mission execution with fully integrated control of payloads, such as the Sony α7R IV camera. Then, capture and storage of geotagged images on the drone occur in real time.

Next, image data correction and processing happen seamlessly. This kind of automated workflow illustrates Auterion’s commitment to building efficient operational solutions for enterprise-ready drones, the company said.

“Auterion’s software is updated with its expanding open ecosystem in mind,” added Achtelik. “That gives customers the best options on the market, offering greater flexibility and choice to meet enterprise quality, scale, and regulatory needs.”

Publicerad den Lämna en kommentar

Juniper Systems launches next-gen Geode GNS3 GNSS receiver

Photo: Juniper Systems

Photo: Juniper Systems

Juniper Systems has introduced the Geode GNS3 GNSS receiver, which allows users to collect real-time GNSS data with sub-meter, sub-foot and decimeter accuracy options.

With a scalable platform, users can purchase the level of accuracy they need now, while having the option to increase accuracy in the future.

“This new Geode offers expanded accuracy options to our users,” said John Florio, Geode product manager at Juniper Systems. “We set out to deliver a product that is scalable to our user’s needs. The GNS3 allows users to purchase a receiver that fits their accuracy needs at the moment, while still being able to unlock greater accuracy through subscriptions when that need arises.”

Photo: Juniper Systems

Photo: Juniper Systems

Available in both single-frequency and upgradable multi-frequency antenna configurations, users have the level of accuracy needed to get the job done. The Geode GNS3S offers superb sub-meter accuracy with a single-frequency antenna. The GNS3M allows for scalable accuracy; its multi-frequency antenna support all constellations on L1, L2 and L5 frequencies.

Multi-frequency signal tracking, together with Atlas L-band correction subscriptions, allow for up to decimeter accuracy. As with previous Geode devices, SBAS corrections are available for sub-meter accuracy in certain regions.

Both models also support local differential GNSS real-time kinematic (RTK) and continuously operating reference networks (CORS) through the Geode Connect NTRIP client.

“Providing Atlas corrections and scalable accuracy allows for the Geode to be used in new markets,” Florio said. “A few of these include water utility locating, agriculture and irrigation mapping, mapping projects in remote locations where other correction services are not available, and any other mapping need that requires a higher degree of accuracy.”

The Geode GNS3 offers flexible connectivity and can be used with Windows, Android, iPhone and iPad devices. A USB-C port allows for data transfer and fast charging and an antenna port allows for the use of an external antenna.

The Geode GNS3 GNSS receiver is now available worldwide.

Publicerad den Lämna en kommentar

Save the date: QGIS contributor meeting in Firenze

After a long hiatus, we are happy to announce that there will be a another international QGIS Contributor Meeting in conjunction with this year’s FOSS4G in Firenze, Italy from 18 to 22 August 2022.

QGIS Contributors Meetings are volunteer-driven events where contributors to the QGIS project from around the world get together in a common space – usually a university campus. The event is normally three days in duration and we hold two such events each year. During these events, contributors to the QGIS project take the opportunity to plan their work, hold face-to-face discussions and present new improvements to the QGIS project that they have been working on. Everybody attending the event donates their time to the project for the days of the event. As a project that is built primarily through online collaboration, these meetings provide a crucial ingredient to the future development of the QGIS project. The event is planned largely as an ‘unconference’ with minimal structured programme planning. We do this to allow attendees the freedom to meet dynamically with those they encounter at the event. Those sessions that are planned are advertised on the event web page and we try to enable remote participation through video conferencing software. Although our hosts are not funded and donate the working space to us, we show our appreciation by making one of our software release’s splash screens in honour of that host, which is a great way to gain exposure of your institution and country to the hundreds of thousands of users that make use of QGIS.

For more details and to sign up, please visit the corresponding wiki page.

Nyhet från QGIS, orginal inlägg

Publicerad den Lämna en kommentar

ION and Google host Smartphone Decimeter Challenge

Photo: Google

Photo: Google

Winners will present their projects at ION GNSS+ 2022 in Denver

The Institute of Navigation’s Satellite Division, in partnership with Google, will host the 2nd annual Smartphone Decimeter Challenge, with the winning teams presenting their methods at the ION GNSS+ 2022 meeting. ION GNSS+ 2022 takes place Sept. 19–23 at the Hyatt Regency Denver, adjacent to the Colorado Convention Centerx.

The Smartphone Decimeter Challenge is designed to advance research in smartphone GNSS positioning accuracy using state-of-the-art algorithms and technologies such as advanced machine learning models and precision GNSS algorithms.

While standard receivers using signals from GPS, other GNSS (Galileo, BeiDou, GLONASS) and regional systems (QZSS and IRNSS) provide accuracy between 3 and 10 meters (often worse in urban environments), better location can be obtained by processing carrier-phase measurements, inertial measurement unit (IMU) data, and base station corrections.

Teams will use datasets collected using the GPS receivers and IMUs of Android smartphones to compute location down to an accuracy of decimeters. Mobile users will benefit from lane-level-accuracy-based services, enhanced experience in location-based gaming, and greater specificity in location of road safety issues.

Winner selection is based on the accuracy of results from the test datasets compared to highly accurate ground truth. The top three winners will receive prizes valued at $15,000+ including a guaranteed speaking slot at the highly competitive ION GNSS+ 2022 conference (subject to technical paper and ION presentation requirements); a travel subsidy; and complimentary registration to attend ION GNSS+ 2022 in Denver.

Entries must be received by July 29.

Publicerad den Lämna en kommentar

UAV Navigation puts Vector-600 autopilot through paces

The Vector-600 autopilot. (Photo: UAV Navigation)

The Vector-600 autopilot. (Photo: UAV Navigation)

UAV Navigation has confirmed the safety and reliability of its Vector-600 autopilot for civil applications with an independent study. The study was performed as part of the European Union VaNeT project, and conducted by third-party company Anzen Engineering.

An autopilot system in an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)  is the heart of the flight control system. For the Vector-600, the study included a reliability prediction report (RPR), failure mode effects and criticality analysis (FMECA) and fault tree analysis (FTA).

Reliability Prediction Report. The RPR analyzes probability of failure of every single sensor and component inside a system. It helps define component failure rates and, consequently, a prediction of the time that the VECTOR-600 is expected to operate free of failures under given operating conditions. According to this, the VECTOR-600 has shown a mean time between failures of more than 19,500 hours.

Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis. A FMECA study identifies potential failures of system functions and assesses their effects, so that mitigation actions can be defined. It is a bottom-up analysis considering each single elementary failure mode and assessing its effects.

Fault Tree Analysis. Fault trees are a classic deductive analysis technique useful for both qualitative and quantitative analysis. For the Vector-600, a quantitative FTA provided probability estimates for major hazards, as well as identifying single-point failure modes and guiding further design for hazard reduction. According to the results, Vector-600 showed a probability of loss of mission per flight hour of 1,809E-05 under its operating conditions.

“The FMECA, RPR, and FTA analysis performed by the external and independent company Anzen have proven that our most advanced autopilot, Vector-600, is one of the most reliable GNC [guidance, navigation and control] systems for NATO Class I and II unmanned aircrafts available in the market and enables our clients to execute missions ensuring safety,” UAV Navigation stated in a press release.

The EU regulation framework defines three classes of operations: open, specific and certified. In specific and certified category operations, including most professional UAS flights, operators and aircraft manufacturers need to prove safe operation of their platforms. For this reason, the study of the reliability of the systems involved in the UAV becomes a must to demonstrate the system can operate free of failures under specific operational conditions.

The full analysis report is available on request.