UAV Trajectory Adjustment for Autonomous Flight Override
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Current aerial vehicles with autonomous flight capabilities lack intuitive and easy-to-use systems for human intervention, making it difficult for users to modify or adjust their flight paths, especially in situations requiring obstacle avoidance or deviation from predetermined targets.
Innovation Solution
A system comprising user-friendly interfaces, including physical controls and graphical user interfaces, allows users to modify autonomous flight paths by adding directional, velocity, or acceleration components, enabling seamless transitions between autonomous and manual control without disrupting the vehicle's operation.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Extent of automation
If autonomous flight control is implemented, then flight automation and operational burden reduction are improved, but user intervention capability and flight path flexibility deteriorate
Solution Approach 1:
The system dynamically switches between autonomous and manual control modes based on user input. The control system is designed to accept both autonomous navigation commands and manual override inputs, allowing seamless transition between control paradigms. This dynamic control architecture resolves the contradiction by making the system adaptable to different operational needs while maintaining both automation and user intervention capabilities.
Solution Approach 2:
The control system is designed to perform multiple functions: it can operate in fully autonomous mode for routine flights, accept manual trajectory modifications when users need to avoid obstacles, and provide complete manual control when necessary. This multi-functional control architecture allows the same system to serve both automated operation and user intervention requirements.
2Adaptability or versatility
If manual control is implemented, then user intervention capability is improved, but operational burden and complexity increase
Solution Approach 1:
The system implements partial manual control where users can intervene only in specific aspects of flight (trajectory modifications) while leaving other aspects (altitude maintenance, speed control) under autonomous management. This partial action approach allows user intervention capability without requiring complete manual control, thus reducing operational burden while maintaining flexibility.
3Ease of operation
If fully autonomous flight is used, then operational simplicity is improved, but ability to respond to unexpected situations deteriorates
Solution Approach 1:
The system incorporates feedback mechanisms that allow users to monitor autonomous flight and provide corrective input when unexpected situations arise. The control architecture includes sensors and communication channels that enable the user to detect obstacles or unusual conditions and intervene appropriately, thus maintaining reliability while preserving operational simplicity through primarily autonomous operation.
Data Source
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
AI summary
Systems, methods, and devices are provided herein for effecting autonomous flight of one or more unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), and modifying the autonomous flight. In some instances, the autonomous flight may be effected via a first user input. The autonomous flight may modified by a second user input while maintaining the autonomous flight. The first and second inputs may be input at different user interfaces. Various parameters of the UAV, including a flight path, may be modified while maintaining the autonomous flight such that user is assisted and maintains a degree of control of the UAV during the autonomous flight.