C O M P E T I T I O N S

Flying Robots to the Rescue

Jonathan Roberts, Deputy Director, ARCAA, and Research Director of the Autonomous Systems Lab, CSIRO ICT Center,Brisbane, Queensland, Australia and Rod Walker, Director, ARCAA, and Professor, Queensland University of Technology,Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

UAVs could one day save the lives of lost civilians andthose sent to find them, and a competition in outbackAustralia is proving how soon that day might come.

We have all seen news stories of people who venturedbeyond the day-to-day reach of the community and got lost:search parties are formed,aircraft drafted in, andoften large sums of mon-ey expended in the questto find them.

In Australia, these sto-ries are all too common.There is a lot of ‘‘the out-back’’ in which to get lostand survival in this desertregion depends on accessto drinking water. Evenin our cities, wild countryis never far away. A recenthigh-profile example isthat of the Minister forTourism and Water in thestate of Victoria, TimHolding. In August 2009,he failed to return froma winter-hiking trip onMount Feathertop, triggering a large and complex search and res-cue effort that was, after two and a half days, ultimately successful.

Also close to most Australian cities is that other vast area inwhich to get lost: the ocean. Australia is surrounded by water,and more people go missing at sea than on land. In fact, Australia

lost its own Prime Minister Harold Holt in 1967, when he wentfor a swim at Cheviot Beach near his holiday home at Portsea inVictoria. More commonly, the people who go missing at sea arethose traveling between the many islands surrounding the main-land, particularly those of the Torres Strait to our north: enginefailure can be catastrophic in these stormy tropical waters.

In this modern age of communications and global positioningsystem (GPS) technology, why don’t the lost or stranded simplycall for help and give their location? Of course, they first have tobe carrying the appropriate equipment, an emergency systemsuch as Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon (EPIRB)or Galileo’s future Safety of Life. So, until we have emergencytransponders implanted at birth, we as a society will still have tolook for the lost, typically with only a vague idea of where theymight be and how long they’ve been out there.

Aerial search is the most practical method for locating a lost per-son because of the large areas involved. However, there are twoverysignificant impediments to this. The first is the lack of flying assets.

There are not many air-craft in a given region ofAustralia that can bebrought into the searcharea in the time necessaryto conduct a successfuloperation. The policeservice of Queensland,Australia’s second largeststate by area (1.8 millionkm2), neither own anyaircraft nor a helicopter.Further, those aircraft thatmay be made availablehave very limited opera-tional capabilities. Forexample, there are manyrestrictions imposed onflying at night.

The second major im-pediment to aerial search

is atmospheric conditions. It is often the weather that causes a per-son to meet with disaster and, if these conditions persist, an air searchwould be impossible because of the risk of losing the searchers. If itwere possible for there to be a worse story than that of a lost personperishing, it is that of rescuers losing their lives trying to save others.

It is the time for robots to come to the rescue! UAVs havebeen developed by the military for search and surveillance,Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MRA.2010.935799

Welcome to the first edition of a regular column

devoted to robotics competitions and challenges and

the topics related to them. The goal of the column is not

only to describe events that have taken place but also to

discuss the role that competitions and challenges have in

the larger context of robotics research and education. For

the first column, however, we have a report on the third

Australian Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) Challenge,

focused on Outback Rescue, recently held in Queensland.—Bill Smart, Washington University, St. Louis,

Editor, Competitions Column

Figure 1. The first drop by TeamCloud 9. (Courtesy Stefan Hrabar,CSIRO.)

Figure 2. Joe is saved by TeamCloud 9’s winning drop.(Courtesy Stefan Hrabar,CSIRO.)

IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine8 MARCH 2010

but these systems are expensive by civilian standards. What is re-quired are cheaper, simpler, and easier to operate solutions thatcan be readily deployed by emergency service departments.

Changing society’s understanding of the capabilities of UAVs,promoting their use for civilian purposes, and pushing technol-ogy development in that direction are the long-term goals of theUAV challenge—Outback Rescue, an annual competition runin Queensland by the Australian Research Center for AerospaceAutomation (ARCAA), an unincorpo-rated joint venture of CSIRO andQueensland University of Technology(http://www.uavoutbackchallenge.com.au).

The third UAV challenge was heldrecently on the outskirts of the townof Kingaroy in south-east Queensland.Teams from around the world came tocompete for A$70,000 in cash prizes.University students, UAV hobbyists,and even UAV professionals acting in aprivate capacity were given the chal-lenge of finding a ‘‘lost bushwalker’’ (amannequin) called ‘‘Outback Joe.’’ Joehas gone missing in a region approxi-mately 3–9 km from Kingaroy airport.Teams are told what Joe looks like,where he was last known to be, andthe likely area in which he may nowbe located—somewhere in 15 km2.Each team has 1 h to launch theirUAV, find Outback Joe, and deliver awater bottle to him. It’s a straightfor-ward mission brief but an extremelychallenging task. The winning teamstands to take away A$50,000.

Safety is of primary concern;hence, teams must prove that they havea flight-worthy, capable UAV beforethey are invited to fly. The teams mustalso provide documentary and video

evidence that their UAV, and theirpersonnel, are safe at two check pointsleading up to the event.

In the first year of the UAV challenge,more than 20 teams from all around theworld entered. Four made it through tocompetition day, but no UAVs managedto leave the airport. The second year saw34 teams enter: four flew on competitionday, but again, no UAVs crossed the air-port threshold. Finally, in 2009, from aninitial field of 30, two teams managed toleave the airport and head out into thesearch area but neither completed the

mission. Team Melbourne’s UAV crashed because of strong windgusts, and Team Galah’s crash landed after engine failure just134 m from Outback Joe. Team Galah managed to recover theircamera equipment, and Outback Joe could be seen, briefly. Itseems the UAV challenge is just that: a real technical challenge.

The UAV challenge is very different to the more commonMicro Air Vehicle (MAV) competitions in that it is a beyondvisual range event. The far corner of the search area is 9 km from

Figure 3. Team Cloud 9 from Aviation High, winners of theAirborne Delivery Challenge. (Courtesy Stefan Hrabar, CSIRO.)

Figure 4. BrisbaneGrammar School’sUAV shares airspacewith a local.(Courtesy StefanHrabar, CSIRO.)

IEEE Robotics & Automation MagazineMARCH 2010 9

the launch point and ground control sta-tion, making reliable communications aserious challenge for this class of UAV.

The 2009 event was also significantbecause the airport was used by mannedaircraft during the first day of the compe-tition: two fire bombing fixed-wing air-craft, one fire bombing helicopter, and anumber of fire spotting fixed-wing aircraftoperated from the airport throughout theday while the UAVs were flying. In total,there were 48 manned aircraft movementson the busiest day, several while a UAVwas in the search area. Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Author-ity (CASA) was a critical partner of the event, with the CASAperson responsible for UAV operations in attendance through-out and the CEO of CASA attending for two days. The integra-tion and safe operation of UAVs in civilian airspace is thecurrent focus of ARCAA.

The final day of the challenge is a public day and high-schoolcompetition. Students from across Australia are given the chal-lenge of dropping a food package (a chocolate bar) to Outback

Joe, who is now on the airport field con-veniently located next to a temporarygrandstand. In 2009, students were invitedto take part in the Airborne DeliveryChallenge or the Robot Airborne Deliv-ery Challenge, the latter encouragingsome autonomy of flight. In both catego-ries, the pilot does not release the packagebecause he cannot see Outback Joe or theaircraft directly but can observe throughan on-board camera system; this task mustbe performed by a remote mission managerwho is in a tent. Alternatively, teams can

chose to drop the package automatically. Nine teams made itthrough to the final day of the Airborne Delivery Challengewhere the competition was fierce. Team Cloud 9, from theappropriately named Aviation High, demonstrated a direct hit,taking the A$5,000 prize. Two other teams impressed the judgeswith efforts, resulting in the package coming to rest within 4 mof Joe. Only two teams made it through to the final of the RobotAirborne Delivery Challenge and it was Look mAh, no hands!from Brisbane Grammar School who took the A$10,000 prize.

The success of the challenge can beseen in many ways. First, it is inspiringa generation of young people to thinkabout the emerging UAV industry as apossible career path. Second, themedia coverage generated by theevent educates the public and showsthem that UAVs can be used for civil-ian tasks such as search and support.Third, the fact that the event is runfrom an airport alongside manned air-craft operations demonstrates to theregulators, the aviation community,and the public that UAVs and mannedgeneral aviation aircraft can coexist inharmony. Finally, the challenge showsall of us—competitors, organizers,spectators, regulators, and the pub-lic—that it is possible to worktogether toward a common goal in acooperative and positive manner.

The atmosphere of the event isinspiring and makes all to come backnext year and do it all again. Maybethe A$50,000 Search and RescueChallenge will be won? But maybe itwill take a few years more! Whateverhappens, progress is being made in allsorts of directions, and it is clear thatUAVs will be part of our future.

Figure 5. A close up of BrisbaneGrammar School’s UAV. (CourtesyStefan Hrabar, CSIRO.)

IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine10 MARCH 2010