86 emphasised, so the push for radio interoperability and hot-swappability is driving small manufacturers to continue updating their systems for mechanical compatibility and seamless interfacing with a wider range of radios. The advent of swappable radios has been acknowledged as the main hurdle towards the creation of true universal uncrewed system controllers. Designing and engineering an interface that multiple radios can use was not hugely difficult from a technical point of view; inspiration for the interface most commonly used today even took some minor inspiration from the Nintendo Game Boy. Rather, jumping this said hurdle required intensive collaboration between radio manufacturers and GCS engineers to agree on connection and integration standards that everyone was willing to adopt and conform to, by which seamless radio interoperability and swappability could be achieved. The end result was not something alien, but an idea that bridges the gap between the various existing radio connection standards, including compatibility with Nett Warrior. Engineering the system consisted broadly of designing the electrical interfaces (a close understanding of the contents of Nett Warrior connectors was vital) and optimising a mechanical form factor that would fit 99% of all radios. Naturally, the latter was no mean feat, but this was eventually influenced by the near-universal use of MBITR-standard batteries among radios. Given that 99% of radios are designed to use that type of twist-on battery, it formed a critical guideline for a GCS design aiming to function as a handheld universal controller. Otherwise, the standard has been formed to specify as little as possible to avoid stifling creativity and customisability as some overly lengthy standard documents tend to. Additionally, handheld GCSs must withstand environmental hazards, as well as case- and container-type GCSs, so advances in sealing are visible in such products. While this includes more robust gasket designs and selections, GCS engineers are learning that the best way to seal something is to not cut a hole into it to begin with (a simple measure, but not something always taught in universities), so designs are maturing accordingly. Across the board, GCS manufacturers keep a close eye on the most powerful and cost-effective CPUs and GPUs available to account for the full spectrum of customer demands. Some end-users (particularly those new to industrial UAV survey work) still want a bare-bones, single-screen computer with 8 GB of RAM purely for managing aircraft waypoints; others seek something with a multi-core Intel i9 CPU and a nonintegrated GPU, given the practical benefits of being able to output processed survey data from the GCS before leaving the survey location to analyse it and ascertain if additional flights are needed. Given the speed at which new processors and embedded systems are released, the capacity for hub- and case-based GCSs to integrate with rack-mount computer cases designed for field surveys, and hence rapidly take advantage of new innovations in processing solutions, will become increasingly prized by high-end operators across industry and defence. Design standards While GCSs remain highly bespoke systems in many quarters, with customisations needed for every enduser, mounting calls for connectivity and interoperability (as well as the need to reduce training when operators are forced to use a different GCS to their usual set-up) are influencing the emergence of new regulations aimed at organising and standardising designs, much as certifications can increase the price of a bespoke unit. Several of these factors directly influence the GCS design process, depending on the operation type and level of certification required, and relate closely to the Specific Assurance and Integrity Level (SAIL) standards. Those familiar with our most recent feature on autopilots (Issue 55) may recall that the SAILs were published by EASA (FAA equivalents to follow) and indicate levels of risk and hence the system robustness needed for an uncrewed vehicle mission to be certified via a Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA). For GCSs being designed to SAIL III compliance, the primary standard is the Means of Compliance (MoC) listed under Operational Safety Objectives (OSO) #19-20. Those guidelines focus on human-machine interface (HMI) qualities and were released for public consultation in July; as of writing, they remain under October/November 2024 | Uncrewed Systems Technology Some high-end GCS manufacturers are involved in defining key standards on radio interoperability, human-machine interfacing and other qualities (Image courtesy of UXV Technologies)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjI2Mzk4