Developing a remote release mechanism in support of unmanned aerial systems: A comparison of two separate approaches in freshman engineering design

As restrictions on operating small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS) in the United States national airspace system (NAS) have compounded university researchers in this discipline have had to react by developing increasingly more novel ways to collect remote sensing data. Current restrictions by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) require universities to apply for a Certificate of Authorization (COA) to operate any remote control device for the purposes of research. Previously, many universities operated under Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57 (for model aircraft operators). University research does not fall under this circular and therefore, alternative methods of gathering aerial images in support of the universities remote sensing projects needed to be explored. The freshman engineering design course at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore is a multidisciplinary and collaborative effort between the Engineering Program and Aviation Sciences Program faculty. Introductory engineering design process theory is taught by engineering faculty while students engage in an experiential exercise in problem solving with the Aviation faculty serving the role of a client with a specific problem that needs to be remedied. This paper outlines the freshmen engineering design process from the introduction of the initial problem statement, mid-term review and final product delivery of a remote release system for a non-powered glider sensor system. The aviation faculty serving as the client is involved with the class from initial team selection to evaluation of the final product and student´s presentation abilities. Students were asked to design a remote release system that would support the deployment of the client´s glider platform from an existing kite lifting device. The freshman design class was divided into two groups and asked to design systems that would meet the clients design criteria. The authors present an in depth comparison of design approaches, execution and lesson- learned. Group leadership dynamics are considered.