J Intell Robot Syst (2017) 88:597–618

DOI 10.1007/s10846-017-0475-z

A Novel Landing System to Increase Payload Capacity

and Operational Availability of High Altitude Long
Endurance UAVs
Tin Muskardin · Georg Balmer · Linnea
Persson · Sven Wlach · Maximilian Laiacker ·
Anibal Ollero · Konstantin Kondak

Received: 14 September 2016 / Accepted: 5 January 2017 / Published online: 26 January 2017
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Abstract Unmanned stratospheric aircraft capable of
staying aloft for long periods of time have become a
topic of interest in the past years. Several problems are
still to be solved to allow for a profitable commercial
use of such aircraft. The inherent lightweight design
leads to fragile structures with low payload capacities
and a high wind sensitivity. The weather dependence
T. Muskardin () · G. Balmer · S. Wlach · M. Laiacker ·
K. Kondak
German Aerospace Center DLR, Institute of Robotics
and Mechatronics, Muenchener Str. 20, 802234 Wessling,
Germany
e-mail: tin.muskardin@dlr.de
G. Balmer
e-mail: georg.balmer@dlr.de
S. Wlach
e-mail: sven.wlach@dlr.de
M. Laiacker
e-mail: maximilian.laiacker@dlr.de
K. Kondak
e-mail: konstantin.kondak@dlr.de
L. Persson
KTH Stockholm, Department of Automatic Control,
Osquldas väg 10, SE-100 44, 11428 Stockholm, Sweden
e-mail: laperss@kth.se
A. Ollero
University of Seville, ETS Ingenieria, Camino
Descubrimientos s/n, 41092 Sevilla, Spain
e-mail: aollero@us.es
significantly reduces the system’s operational avail-
ability. To address these drawbacks a novel landing
system is proposed in this paper. The landing gear
can be removed from the aircraft and a ground-based
mobile landing platform is introduced. The main tech-
nical challenges consist in the precise relative state
estimation and cooperative control of the involved
vehicles. A reliable simulation model of the overall
system was developed and a number of simulation
experiments performed before the actual landing was
attempted with an experimental system setup. Mul-
tiple successful landing experiments demonstrate the
validity of the proposed system.
Keywords Aerial robotics · Cooperative control ·
UAV · UAS · Multi-robot systems
1 Introduction
1.1 Motivation and Challenges
In the recent years, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
have gained widespread interest, and they are now
used in many areas. High altitude, long endurance
(HALE) UAVs are promising in terms of poten-
tial applications; however, the development has not
yet reached the stage where a commercial use is
viable. Intended for a use in the stratosphere, at alti-
tudes in the order of 20km, HALE UAVs typically
have large wingspans and very lightweight structures.
598
Equipped with solar cells and sufficient battery capac-
ity, such airplanes can stay airborne day and night,
which gives them a theoretically unlimited endurance.
This opens up possibilities for various applications,
including earth observation, atmospheric science and
communication networks. Some of these tasks are
now performed by satellites, which are very expen-
sive to build, launch and operate. Apart from saving
the cost of a rocket launch, HALE UAVs have more
advantages: they are independent of an orbit, and can
operate anywhere, either staying at a given location,
patrolling over a large area, or relocating as neces-
sary, e.g. in response to a natural disaster. Unlike
satellites, aerial vehicles would be able to return to
the earth surface for maintenance or updates. One of
the main limitation of HALE platforms is their typ-
ically low payload capacity. In order to fly at high
altitudes, a low wing loading is necessary, which trans-
lates to a large wing area and a low gross weight.
However, the batteries required for overnight flight are
heavy, and further reduction of the structural mass is
very difficult, given the already extreme lightweight
design. New approaches are required to lower the
empty weight and in turn increase the payload.
The approach suggested in this paper is to remove
the landing gear. With mission durations of several
months, the landing gear, which is only used for take-
off and landing, is merely dead weight for most of
the time. Without an aircraft-mounted landing gear,
new solutions need to be found for take-off and land-
ing. Take-off could be realized using some sort of a
temporary gear, which is dropped once the aircraft is
airborne. The landing, however, poses a bigger chal-
lenge. The core idea is to have a landing platform
mounted onto a ground vehicle, which is able to accel-
erate to the UAV’s landing speed and to cooperatively
with the UAV control position and velocity, so that the
UAV can touch down on the landing platform without
a horizontal velocity component relative to the plat-
form. This would not only eliminate the need for a
landing gear, but also facilitate landings in crosswind
situations, as the aircraft does not need to align with
the runway direction. HALE UAVs are typically very
sensitive to wind, due to their size and low weight,
and this proposed landing procedure could greatly
improve their operational availability. The overall goal
is to experimentally demonstrate the feasibility of such
a landing. For this purpose, a small UAV is used
together with a landing platform mounted on a car
J Intell Robot Syst (2017) 88:597–618
with a human driver. The demonstrator setup is shown
in Fig. 1 and will be described in detail in Section 2.
In a first step the dynamical models of the air-
craft and ground vehicle have been derived using the
methods described in [5, 7, 13], and [14] and a realis-
tic simulation environment was created. The different
aspects of the landing manoeuvre were then sequen-
tially analyzed before the first landing was attempted.
The concept of a ground based landing gear can be
beneficial to all types of aircraft and has already been
studied in the scope of different research projects.
Two mentionable projects can be found in [1] and
[2], where the focus was on heavy commercial avia-
tion and its inherent requirements. Consequently, the
resulting landing systems substantially differ from
the solution proposed here, where the focus is on
ultra-lightweight HALE UAVs.
1.2 Main Contribution
The main contribuntion of this work consists in the
development of an integrated landing system for ultra-
light unmanned aircraft without landing gear. The
focus was thereby on practicality and reliability of the
solution. As described in [3], a first version of the pro-
posed landing system was successfully tested using
a hardware in the loop (HIL) test setup. Thereby a
virtual aircraft was landed on the actual ground vehi-
cle. In [4] the landing manoeuvre was successfully
demonstrated for the first time using a smaller scale
test setup. The landing was thereby executed multiple
times, proving the validity of the chosen approach. In
the present paper, the results of the subsequent devel-
opment work and additional landing experiments are
presented. The inclusion of vision-based state esti-
mates into the control loops and the modification of
the high-level mission control structure for a safer
Fig. 1 Demonstrator setup for landing experiments
J Intell Robot Syst (2017) 88:597–618 599

Fig. 2 The different phases of the landing manoeuvre

600 J Intell Robot Syst (2017) 88:597–618

and smoother landing performance represent the most

important improvements. The locking mechanism pre-
sented in this paper was adapted to the demonstrator
setup and has yet to be modified for a use on large
scale aircraft as will be explained in Section 6. For bet-
ter readability, some basic information from [3] and
[4] is summarized here.
Fig. 3 Aerial vehicle for first landing experiments and mobile
ground vehicle with mounted landing platform
1.3 The Landing Manoeuvre
ground vehicle, referred to as UAV and UGV, respec-
The landing manoeuvre has been divided into six
tively. Both vehicles are shown in Fig. 3. The UAV
distinct phases, as illustrated in Fig. 2:
is a commercially available product1 with a wingspan
1. Initial approach of 3.3m and a maximum takeoff mass of 21.5kg.
2. High precision approach It has been equipped with a flight control system
3. Guided descent and sensors including RTK-GPS (Novatel FlexPak6),
4. Final descent and touchdown IMU (MicroStrain 3DM-GX3-25), pitot tube (Simtec
5. Deceleration to full stop PSS8), and an optical camera (Allied Vision Prosilica
6. Ground Lock GC1380). The ground vehicle is a modified passen-
ger car equipped with an on-board computer as well
Phases 1 and 2 guide the UAV to a pre-defined
as RTK-GPS, IMU, a Graphical User Interface (GUI),
start point about 300m behind the ground vehicle (will
and optical markers on the roof of the car.
also be referred to as UGV in the following), which is
The landing platform is mounted on the car’s roof
waiting at its start-/idle position at the runway thresh-
and consists of an aluminum frame and a net. It is 5m
old. The final approach consists of phases 3 and 4,
wide and 4m long. The net tension is adapted to the
where the UGV starts accelerating and then moves
weight of the UAV and the expected maximum touch-
cooperatively with the UAV, until the aircraft touches
down impact. The mesh spacing has been chosen in
down on the landing platform. In phases 5 and 6 the
accordance with the UAV wheel dimensions, so that
UGV is the main actor, decelerating the joined vehi-
upon touchdown the wheels push through the net and
cles and safely terminating the manoeuvre. In these
the aircraft fuselage comes to rest on the net. The high
phases, the UAV’s control surfaces are used to assist
level cooperative control loops are closed through a
in keeping the UAV safely locked down on the landing
wireless data connection on 5.8GH z, using a lag com-
platform.
pensation term for the generation of smooth signals
The transitions between the different landing
despite communication lags.
phases are managed via a state machine logic, which
also includes a failsafe mechanism. If the UAV devi-
ates significantly from the flight path (e.g. due to a
3 Relative State Estimation
strong gust), or if the operator gives an abort com-
mand, the UAV is commanded to go around and fly
Before any cooperative control task can be performed,
aerodrome circuits following pre-defined waypoints,
the relative vehicle states must be known. The qual-
while the UGV is commanded to a full stop. The
ity of the relative state estimates directly influences
implemented state machine will be explained in detail
the achievable control precision. A number of differ-
in Section 9. For further information on the landing
ent vision-based state estimation methods, including
manoeuvre please refer to [3].
incremental feature based motion tracking, RANSAC
based motion tracking, as well as techniques based on
geometrical models [10] and optical marker tracking
2 Experimental Setup
have been analyzed and tested. In the end a combi-
nation of GPS-based networked state estimation and
The proposed landing system used as technology
demonstrator consists of an aerial vehicle and a 1 Penguin BE UAV (http://www.uavfactory.com/)
J Intell Robot Syst (2017) 88:597–618
optical multi marker tracking showed the best perfor-
mance and was applied to increase the reliability and
precision of the relative state estimation system.
3.1 Networked State Estimation and Lag
Compensation
Each vehicle’s sensor data needs to be transmitted via
a wireless network and fused with the other vehicle’s
local sensor data. In our case GPS position and veloc-
ity are exchanged together with the corresponding
timestamp (GPS Time). This data needs to be synchro-
nized and communication delays compensated for. For
effective lag compensation, the amount of signal lag
needs to be determined, which is done via the GPS
timestamps. This calculation is performed on both
vehicles, where the obsolete measurement received
via the wireless network is subtracted from the local
measurement. In the case of the UAV the lag estimate
is calculated as follows:
tlag = tlocal U AV − tnetwork U GV (1)
The calculation is performed in the same way on
the UGV. A typical lag profile encountered during
landing tests is illustrated in Fig. 4.
As can be seen in Fig. 4, the signal lag estimates
are only available in discrete steps of 0.05s, which
corresponds to the used GPS sensor’s measurement
frequency of 20H z. At a landing velocity of around
21 ms , this would result in a minimum value of 1.05m
for the correction of the relative position. The signal
lag typically ranges from 0.05s to 0.15s with occa-
sional outliers at 0.2s and more. The main factors
influencing the signal lag are the wireless data trans-
mission and the increased amount of signal routing
present in the system, as positioning data is exchanged
between the two vehicles via the ground station.
Different fusion methods (including Kalman filters
and buffer based synchronization methods) have been
Fig. 4 Typical lag profile during flight tests
601
analyzed and tested. In the end a very simple method
showed the best performance results. In the following,
the method will be explained for the UAV side, but
was implemented in the same way for the ground vehi-
cle. The locally measured UAV position is subtracted
from an obsolete UGV position received via the wire-
less network. The relative position is calculated and
the signal lag corrected for, using the above described
lag estimation together with the ground vehicle veloc-
ity that was measured together with its position (at the
same moment in time):
x rel (t) = x U GV (t−tlag )+v U GV (t−tlag )·tlag−x U AV (t)
(2)
with:
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
x u
x(t) = ⎣ y ⎦ v(t) = ⎣ v ⎦ (3)
z w
The reference frame used to describe the above
quantities is pointing in runway direction with its
x-axis, the y-axis is pointing to the right and the z-
axis downwards. Due to the lack of synchronized
acceleration measurements, lag compensation was not
implemented for the calculation of relative veloci-
ties. Here it was assumed that the respective vehicle’s
velocity did not change from its previous value when
lag occurred.
3.2 Optical Marker Tracking
The relative state estimation method described in the
previous chapter is based on data exchange via a
wireless network. This induces significant signal lag
which needs to be compensated for. The lag compen-
sation method proposed in Section 3.1 is only valid for
smaller deviations from the linear forward motion, as
obsolete velocities are used for extrapolation. A virtu-
ally lag-free optical multi marker detection and local-
ization method was therefore developed and imple-
mented to further increase the robustness and preci-
sion of the target estimation. These directly measured
relative state estimates are then fused with the net-
worked GPS-based estimates as will be described in
Section 3.3. This leads to a more reliable system,
which is less sensitive to a degraded GPS quality or
complete sensor outages.
602 J Intell Robot Syst (2017) 88:597–618

Artificial markers are a good tool to detect a known

object and localize it relative to a monocular cam-
era. The open-source software suite ARToolkit [11]
was chosen for object detection and localization. This
algorithm was chosen because it can run in real
time on the on-board image processing computer. The
method also has a very low false positive detection
rate because a checksum is included in the binary
pattern used for the markers. This is very important
for the reliability and safety of the automatic land-
ing system. A problem can occur when the marker
is in frontal direction of the camera. In this position
the orientation estimate gets unstable for the angles
around the camera x and y axis (z axis pointing in the
viewing direction) [12]. This limitation doesn’t affect
our application because the unstable angles are not
needed for the landing algorithm. Only the angle of
the marker around the camera z axis would be needed Fig. 5 Reference marker pose estimate and transformation to
desired reference point at GPS antenna mounting position
to align the UAV heading to the landing platform on
the UGV. Another drawback of this method is that
a partly occluded marker might not be detected and measurements using two RTK-GPS receivers and the
localized. To overcome this drawback multiple mark- vision-based multiple marker system.
ers are used. A reference marker is specified and the The vision measurements are more accurate the
measurements will be with respect to this marker. If closer the camera gets to the marker. The detection of
the position of the reference marker together with the marker is possible from a distance of up to 16m
one or more other marker is measured the relative when the target is in the field of view. Between 10s
position and orientation with respect to the reference and 15s the target is not inside the camera field of view
marker will be calculated and stored. If the markers so no measurements are available. Below 10m relative
are measured multiple times the measurements will altitude the target is reliably detected by the vision sys-
be averaged. If the new measurement differs from the tem. The relative measurements of the two systems are
stored more than a specified value (in our case 5cm) very close together during the critical landing phase
the old measurements will be discarded and only the below 5m. The vision system cannot detect the marker
new measurement is used. If multiple known mark- during the last phase below 1m. The visual relative
ers and not the reference marker are in the image position estimate is a good method to compensate for
a RANSAC algorithm is used to eliminate possible
outliers. After the RANSAC is performed the mea-
surements are averaged. Figure 5 shows the estimated
reference marker pose (large marker in the middle of
the roof) and the transformation to a pre-defined point
of interest (here the GPS antenna location) during an
exemplary landing attempt.
As can be seen, the vision-based estimation of the
GPS antenna location corresponds well to the actual
sensor location (white antenna in the middle of the
front crossbar). The advantages of this algorithm are a
more reliable optical target detection and also higher
accuracy of the measured position of the reference
marker because multiple measurements are fused. Fig. 6 Vision-based relative state estimates compared to RTK-
Figure 6 shows a comparison of the relative position GPS measurements
J Intell Robot Syst (2017) 88:597–618 603

GPS or communication problems during the most crit- the measurement noise covariance matrices for GPS
ical phase of the landing which significantly increases and marker tracking are:
the reliability of the landing system. Figure 7 shows a ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
series of images, illustrating the continuous function- 0.4 0 0 40 0
ality of the optical multi marker tracking algorithm R GP S = ⎣ 0 0.4 0 ⎦ R vision = ⎣0 4 0 ⎦
until touchdown. 0 0 1.6 0 0 16
(6)
3.3 Sensor Data Fusion
The relative velocity estimate is used to estimate
To use both the marker detection and the relative GPS the relative position when no new measurement is
position the sensor data is fused using a linear Kalman available. The Kalman filter is running at 20H z.
filter. The fused realtive position is then used in the
control loops. The state of the filter consist of the three
relative position components and relative velocity x = 4 Cooperative Control
[x, y, z, u, v, w]. The state transition matrix is
⎡ ⎤ In the following subsections a right handed coordinate
1 0 0 Δt 0 0 system is used to describe the motion of the aircraft
⎢ 0 1 0 0 Δt 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ and the ground vehicle. The reference frame origin is
⎢ 0 0 1 0 0 Δt ⎥
A=⎢ ⎢0 0 0 1 0 0 ⎥
⎥ (4) located at the northern end of the runway (black home
⎢ ⎥ icon in Fig. 24), with the x-axis pointing in southward
⎣0 0 0 0 1 0 ⎦
runway direction, the y-axis to the right, and the z-
000 0 0 1 axis downwards. It will be referred to as local runway
The filter is updated with the measurement that is coordinate system.
available at the update timestep. If both sensors have
valid measurements only the relative GPS position is 4.1 Longitudinal cooperative control
used to update the filter. The system noise covariance
matrix is: Two main phases were considered during the land-
⎡ ⎤ ing. At the beginning of the landing manoeuvre, the
0.005 0 0 0 0 0
⎢ 0 0.005 0 0 0 0 ⎥ UGV is at rest at the runway threshold, while the
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0.0005 0 0 0 ⎥ UAV is far behind, approaching the runway. While
Q=⎢ ⎢ 0
⎥ (5)
⎢ 0 0 0.15 0 0 ⎥⎥
the UAV is catching up, the UGV already needs to
⎣ 0 0 0 0 0.15 0 ⎦ accelerate to match the UAV’s speed. For this initial
0 0 0 0 0 0.01 acceleration phase, the UGV speed command is cal-
culated under the assumption that the UAV maintains
its speed, while the UGV has a constant acceleration.
With these assumptions, and the constraint that speed
and position shall be aligned at the same time, the
following UGV speed command is derived:

VU GV = VU AV − 2 · aU GV · (xU GV − xU AV ) (7)

where aU GV is the desired (constant) acceleration

of the UGV, and VU AV is the current UAV veloc-
ity, assumed to remain constant. This control law
implicitly defines the point at which the UGV starts
accelerating, which can be found by setting VU GV =
0, and solving for the relative position:

VU2 AV
xU GV − xU AV = (8)
Fig. 7 Continuous optical marker tracking until touchdown 2 · aU GV
604 J Intell Robot Syst (2017) 88:597–618

The start of the UGV acceleration phase depends
on the UAV speed and the UGV acceleration. Assum-
ing a typical approach speed of 19 ms for the UAV
and roughly half the maximum UGV acceleration for
aU GV , a relative position of around 190m is found.
Since VU AV in this case is the UAV’s ground speed,
effects of head- or tailwind are automatically consid-
ered and the UGV will adjust its acceleration phase
accordingly, as defined in Eqs. 7 and 8.
While a constant, relatively high acceleration is
ideal for the initial acceleration phase of the UGV, it is
not suitable for close proximity operations in the sec-
ond phase, where small position and velocity errors
However, as there are relatively tight constraints on
the UAV’s airspeed, especially during approach and
landing, the control authority is rather limited for the
UAV.
A stability analysis with the linearized system mod-
els of the UAV and UGV has been performed for the
longitudinal direction. This analysis has shown that
the coupled system remains stable in a wide range of
gains k1 and k2 .
The total longitudinal system consisting of UAV
and UGV can be expressed as one single decoupled
system of the form:

need to be corrected. ẋU AV AU AV 0 xU AV

=
For this second phase we propose an algorithm ẋU GV 0 AU GV xU GV

based on a feedback controller which coordinates the BU AV 0 uU AV

motion of both vehicles. The scheme of this controller + (11)
0 BU GV uU GV
is shown in Fig. 8. A position difference in x-direction
(along the runway) is fed through the controller and where the inputs are the desired velocity and path
translated into a velocity command. This additional angles of the vehicles, and the outputs are the relative
velocity command is then added to the desired land- distance and the velocities of the vehicles. Given that
ing airspeed of the aircraft and the current aircraft we are considering the longitudinal dynamics isolated
ground speed and sent to the UAV and UGV veloc- from the lateral dynamics, reasonable signals to feed-
ity controllers. Different approaches could be used back for the longitudinal control could be velocities,
for the implementation of the UAV and UGV cou- velocity difference and position difference. The system
pled controller blocks. In our experiments, we used is closed by choosing the input as one of these Equations:
a basic implementation of the two blocks shown in
Vdes U AV = Vland
Fig. 8, where a velocity command for the longitudinal
direction is calculated of the form: Vdes U GV = VU AV + k1 · (xU GV − xU AV ) (12)
VU GV = VU AV + k1 · (xU GV − xU AV ) (9)
Vdes U AV = Vland + k2 · (xU GV − xU AV )
VU AV = Vlanding + k2 · (xU GV − xU AV ) (10) Vdes U GV = VU AV (13)

UGV Coupled Controller 1

UGV
v _des_UGV vel _UGV s pos_UGV

UAV ground speed

19 pos_rel

desired landing airspeed

1
UAV
UAV Coupled Controller v _des_UAV vel _UAV s pos_UAV

Fig. 8 High-level cooperative control strategy

J Intell Robot Syst (2017) 88:597–618 605

Vdes U AV = Vland + k2 · (xU GV − xU AV )

Vdes U GV = VU AV + k1 · (xU GV − xU AV ) (14)

where Vland is a ground speed appropriate for land-

ing. In the first structure given in Equation 12 the
ground vehicle takes over longitudinal positioning
control while the UAV keeps a constant airspeed.
In the control structure from Equation 13, the UAV
takes over positioning control while the UGV adapts
its speed to the ground speed of the UAV. The final
control structure as given in Equation 14 combines
the two previous approaches and makes both vehicles
simultaneously react to differences in position.
Figures 9–11 show how the respective root locus
plots change with the different feedback structures for
the longitudinal controller. In Figs. 9 and 10, the rel-
ative positioning information is only fed back to one
vehicle. In Fig. 11, both vehicles use the positioning Fig. 10 Root locus plot for linearized overall system (UAV and
information simultaneously. UGV) with position feedback only to UAV
As can be seen in these plots, the overall dynam-
ics of the coupled system are very similar for all three For this controller structure the aircraft dynamics
controller structures. The time constants and stability are not dependent on the gain k1 and therefore not dis-
margin are also similar. played in the plot. The controlled aircraft is considered
In Fig. 9, the pole locations of the first coupled sys- a stable system and no further analysis was performed
tem defined in Equation 12 are shown in dependence at this point. Here the influence of the controller gain
of the controller gain k1 . on the overall coupled system dynamics was analyzed.

Fig. 9 Root locus plot for linearized overall system (UAV and Fig. 11 Root locus plot for linearized overall system (UAV and
UGV) with position feedback only to UGV UGV) with position feedback to both vehicles
606 J Intell Robot Syst (2017) 88:597–618

As can be seen, the blue pole remains on the real axis The modified airspeed command, which is sent to
for all values k1 . the UAV flight controller, can be derived as follows:
Figure 10 shows the root locus plot for the con-
troller structure of Equation 13 where the relative VA des = (Vk des − Vk ) + VA (15)
positions are fed back only to the UAV. The ground
If such command was fed to the current aircraft
vehicle is commanded to adjust its speed to the current
velocity controller (based on airspeed control error
UAV ground speed, automatically compensating for
eVA ), only the control error in flight path velocity eVk
changing wind conditions. As can be seen, an imag-
would be considered for the generation of actuator
inary part is developed with an increasing controller
commands, as VA would cancel out:
gain k2 .
Figure 11 shows the root locus plot of the fully cou- eVA = VA des − VA = (Vk des − Vk ) + VA − VA
pled system as defined through Equation 14, where the
= Vk des − Vk = eVk (16)
positioning error is fed back to both vehicles. Again,
an imaginary component is developed with increas- The desired ground speed command is then deter-
ing controller gains k1 and k2 (changing both gains mined as follows:
simultaneously).
In the end the first controller structure as shown Vk des = Vk land + k · (xU GV − xU AV ) (17)
in Fig. 9 was considered to be favorable to the other
approaches. As mentioned before all three approaches
lead to similar overall dynamics with comparable time Vk = VA land + Vk − VA = VA land + Vw (18)
land
constants and stability margin. For the first approach
the real axis pole does not develop an imaginary Here the wind estimate Vw represents the averaged
component with an increasing controller gain. This difference between the UAV ground speed and air-
implies lower oscillations and consequently less con- speed (denoted as Vk − VA ), read out at the moment
trol activity for both systems. It also represents a landing mode is activated (shortly after reaching WP2
simpler practical realization, with the UAV velocity in Fig. 24). As a result, Vk land represents the UAV
being constant and independent of the ground vehi- ground speed command that would approximately
cle state. Additionally all three approaches were tested produce the airspeed present at landing mode initi-
in flight experiments where the first control structure ation. A low-pass filter with a cut-off frequency of
was confirmed to be the best choice for the current 0.2H z was used to obtain an averaged value for the
experimental setup. wind estimate Vw . The resulting modified airspeed
command required for ground speed tracking is then
4.2 Ground Speed Tracking Mode found as:

VA des = VA land + k · (xU GV −xU AV )+Vw −Vk +VA

Additionally, a ground speed tracking mode has been

implemented, where the UAV airspeed command is
modified to control the current UAV ground speed
instead of airspeed. The aircraft will then actively
compensate for atmospheric disturbances (wind gusts,
UGV flow effect) while maintaining the commanded
ground speed. With the ground vehicle controlling
ground speed as well, both vehicles then directly con-
trol the same physical quantity, thus facilitating the
alignment process. It should be noted that all air-
craft envelope protection features remain active and
safe flight is still guaranteed, as only the airspeed
command is modified while the actual UAV flight
controller remains unchanged.
 
previous airspeed command (19)
The results from the linear analysis presented in the
previous section indicate that a constant UAV ground
speed (k = 0 in Equation 17) is the best choice for a
safe landing manoeuvre.
4.3 Lateral cooperative control
For the lateral direction a similar approach as the one
described for the longitudinal direction in Section 4.1
was used. Here, a given lateral deviation is corrected
for by commanding an appropriate corrective course
J Intell Robot Syst (2017) 88:597–618
action. The desired course for the UAV and the ground
vehicle are now calculated as follows:
χU AV = χrunway + k1 (yU GV − yU AV )
1
+k2 (yU GV − yU AV )
s
+k3 (vU GV − vU AV )
χU GV = χrunway + k4 (yU GV − yU AV )
+k5 (vU GV − vU AV )
Where vU AV and vU GV represent the y-component
−
→
of the UAV- and UGV velocity vector Vk =
T
( u v w ) in runway coordinates. As can be seen
from these equations, an integral part has been added
for the aircraft, as well as a damping term for both
vehicles. On the ground vehicle side, an integrator has
not been used, due to the inherent integrating behav-
ior of the human actuator. With this control approach,
the vehicles eliminate lateral position differences and
keep the course parallel to the runway.
4.4 Vertical Control and Flare Law
The vertical flight path is currently implemented as a
constant 3◦ glideslope, combined with a classical flare
law as described in [8] and [9]. The sink rate during
the flare is commanded as:
ḣf lare = k · (h + hB )
The constants k and hB are calculated under the
following constraints:
ḣf lare (hf lare ) = ḣdescent
ḣf lare (0) = 0
This would lead to a relative vertical velocity of
zero at touchdown, which in principle is not desirable
for a runway landing. In our case, where the landing
Fig. 12 Simplified diagram of a conventional altitude con-
troller. It consists of four cascaded loops controlling altitude
607
is performed on top of a moving landing platform, the
touchdown vertical velocity is adjusted through the
retard and ground lock settings, as will be described in
Section 6. The flare initiation altitude hf lare was set
(20) to 5m (relative altitude).
5 Aircraft Flight Control
(21)
Conventional flight control systems consist of sev-
eral single-input, single-output (SISO) control loops,
where the engine is typically used for speed control
and the elevator for altitude control. Figure 12 illus-
trates such a classical control structure for altitude
control.
A separate SISO-controller is used to control air-
speed via the engine, typically consisting of a single
PI-loop with a feedforward term:
1
δt = δtF F + (KVa + KiVa ) · (Vdes − Va ) (24)
s
with throttle command δt , feed-forward term δtF F ,
proportional gain KVa , integral gain KiVa , com-
manded airspeed Vdes , and current airspeed Va .
However, this approach does not account for
the strong inherent coupling in altitude and speed
responses of elevator and thrust commands. Further-
(22)
more, large elevator deflections may drive the airspeed
outside the permissible range, due to the limited con-
trol authority of the speed control system.
To overcome these limitations of conventional
SISO controllers, an improved flight controller, con-
(23)
sidering energy principles as proposed in [8, 15], and
[16], was implemented. Such controller is commonly
referred to as total energy control system (TECS) in
literature. It consists of an integrated control system
h, flight path angle γ , angle of attack α and pitch rate q,
respectively, using P, PI and PD controllers
608 J Intell Robot Syst (2017) 88:597–618

Fig. 13 Simulation of a 50m climb at constant commanded airspeed (left) and a 8 ms speed increase at constant commanded altitude
(right) for the SISO and energy based (TECS) flight controllers

using both throttle and elevator in a coordinated man- 1 e V̇

ner to decouple altitude and airspeed responses. The θcmd = KEI (eγ − V̇ ) − KEP (γ − ) (26)
s g g
basic idea is to use throttle commands to control the
aircraft’s total energy, i.e. the sum of potential and
where eγ and eV̇ represent the flight path angle and
kinetic energy, and elevator commands to control the
acceleration errors respectively.
distribution between potential and kinetic energy. In
A qualitative analysis has been performed by means
practice, the dimensionless energy rates γ = Vḣ = of simulation and flight experiments for both con-
Ėpot Ėkin
mgV and V̇g = mgV are used, leading to the following trol approaches. The controllers were provided with
core algorithm: the same set of flight manoeuvres. Figure 13 shows
two exemplary simulation results for an altitude step
FT 1 e V̇ at constant commanded airspeed and a speed-up
= KT I (eγ + V̇ ) − KT P (γ + ) (25)
mg cmd s g g manoeuvre at constant commanded altitude.

Fig. 14 Simplified diagram of the lateral/directional flight controller. It consists of three cascaded loops controlling course, bank
angle and roll rate p, respectively, using P and PI controllers
J Intell Robot Syst (2017) 88:597–618
Fig. 15 Horizontal flight with the energy based flight con-
troller. The altitude error remains within ±1m, the airspeed
error within ±1.5 ms (commanded values are displayed in blue,
actual sensor data in red)
As can be seen on the left side of Fig. 13 the SISO
controller is not able to maintain the airspeed dur-
ing the climb, despite a full throttle command. The
energy based control logic however reduces the climb
angle as necessary to maintain the airspeed. On the
right image in Fig. 13 a 8 ms speed increase at con-
stant altitude is shown. The coordination of throttle
and elevator is clearly noticeable for the energy based
controller. In the SISO case, the altitude error reaches
2.5m, while the energy based controller keeps it under
1m.
For the directional control of the aircraft, a conven-
tional SISO controller using the ailerons as actuators
was implemented as shown in Fig. 14.
The flight control system was tested in flight exper-
iments and performed as desired [5]. In straight and
level flight, the controller was able to keep the alti-
tude within ±1m and the airspeed within ±1.5 ms of
the desired value, as shown in Fig. 15.
Fig. 16 Climb and descent with the energy based flight con-
troller. The manoeuvres are nicely coordinated. The airspeed
tracking works just as well as during level flight (commanded
values are displayed in blue, actual sensor data in red)
609
Fig. 17 A 3 ms speed increase with the energy based flight con-
troller. The altitude command is tracked just as well as during
level flight, showing the good coordination of elevator and throt-
tle (commanded values are displayed in blue, actual sensor data
in red)
Steps in airspeed and altitude were followed with
only small overshoots, and with no coupling effect
visible in the other variable. Figure 16 shows an exem-
plary climb and descent manoeuvre, while Figs. 17
and 18 show different step commands in airspeed.
6 Retard and Ground Lock
Before a touchdown on top of the landing platform
can be attempted, the aircraft engine has to be shut
down in order not to damage the aircraft or the landing
platform. This so-called “retard” takes place during
a critical phase of the landing manoeuvre, where the
aircraft is very close to the landing platform. A sud-
den loss of thrust force (throttle cut-off) will produce
a deceleration of the aircraft, consequently a decrease
Fig. 18 A 3 ms speed decrease with the energy based flight con-
troller. Again, good tracking of altitude and airspeed. At t = 14s,
the airspeed increases, probably due to a wind gust, but it is
quickly brought back to the desired value (commanded values
are displayed in blue, actual sensor data in red)
610
Fig. 19 Ground tests with aircraft on top of landing platform to determine the best strategy for the ground lock mechanism
of lift force and result in an increasing relative veloc-
ity and position in x- and z-direction (backward and
downward motion).
At the same time the aircraft is already close enough
to the ground vehicle to experience the aerodynamic
disturbances caused by the ground vehicle (increased
airspeed and angle of attack). This so-called “UGV
flow effect” will partly compensate the downward
motion but increase the backward motion due to the
higher aerodynamic drag.
These complex effects have to be compensated by
the flight controller, while now (after engine cut-off)
only the elevator is available to control either altitude
or velocity. The decision was taken in favor of velocity
control; the desired vertical velocity at touchdown is
achieved by adjusting the altitude at which retard is
activated.
In the last moments before touchdown the so-called
“ground-lock” configuration is activated. Thereby the
ailerons are deflected to the maximum upward posi-
tion symmetrically to reduce lift, the elevators are
deflected downward to half of the maximum travel
to generate a nose down moment, and the flaps are
fully retracted. This configuration showed the best
performance results during a number of ground tests,
where the actual aircraft was placed on top of landing
platform at around 70 kmh . It was also found that a pitch
damper had to remain active in order to reduce possi-
ble oscillations once the aircraft is lying on the net of
the landing platform, as well as a locking mechanism,
assuring that the front landing gear remains locked-in
once it crossed the landing platform net, as illustrated
in Fig. 19.
J Intell Robot Syst (2017) 88:597–618
As mentioned before in Section 4.4, a non-zero ver-
tical velocity is required for the landing and needs
to be configured correctly (ideally 0.2 ms at touch-
down). Therefore, the effects of both modes have
been analyzed during virtual landing approaches at
higher altitudes and the produced additional down-
ward velocities ḣ(t) have been determined through
direct measurement. The final (relative) activation
altitude was set to 0.6m for “retard mode” and 0.2m
for “ground lock mode”.
It should be noted, that the presented locking mech-
anism has been adapted to the demonstrator setup and
is not directly transferable to a larger aircraft. For
the final large scale landing system, the ground lock
mechanism has to be reworked, since a landing on a
stretched net will not be possible anymore. Among
other things, this might include the introduction of pre-
defined attachment points on the aircraft aswell asanattitude
alignment and locking system on the ground side.
7 Ground Vehicle Control
Early simulations have shown that relatively slow
ground vehicle dynamics are sufficient for the execu-
tion of a successful cooperative landing manoeuvre.
The choice was therefore taken in favor of a manned
“semi-autonomous” ground vehicle. In this solution
a human driver has to execute the control commands
provided by the ground vehicle controller. The human
basically replaces the mechanical actuator or driv-
ing robot. A Graphical User Interface (GUI) mounted
inside the car is used for displaying the corrective
J Intell Robot Syst (2017) 88:597–618
Fig. 20 Graphical User Interface (GUI) for human driver commands
action the “human actuator” has to perform. There-
fore a screen was mounted inside the ground vehicle
as shown in Fig. 20.
The GUI has been designed as a two-colored
crosshair with the horizontal line indicating throttle
commands and the vertical line representing steer-
ing wheel deflection commands. Both, the ground
vehicle velocity and course controllers were imple-
mented as proportional controllers, directly translating
velocity/course command into throttle/steering wheel
deflection commands, allowing for the adjustment of
the closed-loop ground vehicle dynamics despite the
human driver. The ground vehicle has been equipped
with the same real-time computer and sensor system
(RTK GPS, IMU) as present on the UAV. Data is
exchanged via a wireless network. During first landing
experiments with a simulated UAV as described in [3],
the human driver was capable of following the given
throttle commands reasonably well. As can be seen in
Fig. 21, the actual ground vehicle velocity follows the
desired velocity, where the maximum deviation during
25
desired UGV velocity [m/s]
UGV ground speed [m/s]
actual UGV velocity [m/s]
20
15
10
0
0 10
Fig. 21 Ground vehicle desired vs. actual velocity during a virtual landing experiment (real ground vehicle, virtual aircraft)
611
the last 15s before touchdown remains within a bound
of around 0.6 ms .
The delay in the beginning of the acceleration phase
at around 12s into the landing manoeuvre is due to
the delay introduced by the ground vehicle’s auto-
matic transmission and the human reaction time. The
notch in actual UGV velocity at around 15s is due to
the automatic transmission shifting gears. The ground
vehicle starts to decelerate and at around 38s due
to the fact, that only a relatively short taxiway with
a length of only 500m was used for the performed
experiments. Only around one second after the virtual
touchdown, the ground vehicle reached the end of the
available runway and had to decelerate, leading to an
increase in desired UGV velocity.
8 Ground Vehicle Aerodynamics
The aerodynamic disturbance caused by the ground
vehicle was identified as an important issue and
Desired vs. Actual UGV Velocity
Touchdown at 37s
20 30 40 50 60
manoeuvre time [s]
612 J Intell Robot Syst (2017) 88:597–618

UGV (velocity vector magnitude and direction at a

Fig. 22 Visualization of disturbed flow around the ground
vehicle and optimal landing tracectory
needed to be analyzed in detail. Therefore a numerical
CFD simulation (Computational Fluid Dynamics) has
been performed using a realistic geometrical model of
the landing platform. The airflow characteristics have
been calculated in three dimensions in order to cap-
ture the highest possible detail of the present airflow
conditions. The goals of the CFD simulation consisted
in the determination of the change of airflow veloc-
ity and angle of attack induced by the presence of the
specific point in space), as well as the optimal landing
trajectory.
Figure 22 illustrates the resulting flow situation as
well as the selected final landing trajectory. A vertical
descent above the middle area of the landing platform
induces the smallest variations in airflow magnitude
and direction.
Figure 23 shows the distribution of both, the induced
angle of attack (black lines) and the induced rela-
tive velocity (red lines) in the longitudinal and lateral
direction of the ground vehicle at 1m above landing
platform. A detailed analysis of the results and their
impact on the landing system design can be found in [3].
9 High-Level Mission Control
A state machine has been developed to provide high-
level mission control. The initial state corresponds to
waypoint mode, where the UAV flies a 8-shaped pat-
tern above the airfield (Fig. 24). The waypoints were
set manually, taking into account pilot line-of-sight,

Flow angle and velocity distribution -3m<x<5.5m, y=0m, z=3m

4 1.08
alpha
3
rel. velocity 1.06
landing platform

rel. velocity [-]

4%
alpha [deg]

2 1.04
2.5%
1 1.02

0 1

-1 0.98
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
x-position [m]

Flow angle and velocity distribution x=2m, -3m<y<3m, z=3m 4%

1 1.04
alpha
rel. velocity
rel. velocity [-]
alpha [deg]

0.5 1.02
landing platform

0 1
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
y-position [m]

Fig. 23 Longitudinal (x) and lateral (y) distribution of induced angle of attack (black) and relative velocity (red) at 1m above landing
platform
J Intell Robot Syst (2017) 88:597–618
Fig. 24 Waypoint pattern used for the landing manoeuvre
obstacles (buildings, trees) and wind conditions. Most
of the pattern is flown at an altitude of 110m above
ground and an airspeed of 23 ms , except for the section
between WP1 and WP2, where the UAV initiates a
rapid descent to 30m at an increased airspeed of 28 ms .
The increased airspeed command allows the UAV to
reach the necessary descent angle. The UAV then stays
at 30m altitude for a short distance, which gives the
operator the opportunity to command the start of the
landing manoeuvre. If no such command is given,
the UAV will climb back to 110m and resume the
waypoint pattern.
Once the landing is initiated by the operator, the
UAV’s actions are determined by its position relative
to the landing platform. Figure 25 gives an overview
of the different zones and their corresponding actions.
The main divisions consist of an “inner fence” and an
“outer fence”. As long as as the UAV is within the
inner fence, the landing proceeds normally. Between
the inner fence and the outer fence, the approach
is suspended, but the UAV still tries to reach the
inner fence in order to resume the landing. Outside of
the outer fence, the manoeuvre is aborted, the UAV
performs a go-around and resumes waypoint flight.
As long as as the UAV is within the inner fence, the
landing proceeds normally, i.e. the cooperative control
613
described earlier is active, both in longitudinal and
lateral direction, and the UAV is descending. Above
the flare height of hf lare = 5m, the flight path
angle is constant at γapproach = −3◦ . Once the flare
height has been reached, a flare law is active, reducing
the vertical speed proportionally to the height above
the landing platform. At 0.6m above the platform,
the motor is turned off, and at 0.2m ground lock is
activated. Once the motor is turned off, the UAV is
committed to the landing and will not perform any
go-around manoeuvres.
As can be seen in Fig. 25, during the flare the inner
fence sets relatively tight constraints of ±0.8m in both
longitudinal and lateral direction. This is necessary to
ensure a safe landing, since larger deviations from the
center of the landing platform may result in a part of
the UAV hitting the aluminum frame of the platform
and getting damaged. Above hf lare , the allowed devi-
ation increases as a linear function of the altitude, with
a very flat slope behind the car, because that is the
direction from which the UAV is approaching.
If the UAV leaves the boundary defined by this
inner fence before reaching the flare height, the
descent is stopped (altitude hold) while the cooper-
ative control in lateral and longitudinal direction is
still active. As soon as the UAV is inside the inner
fence again, the descent is resumed. If the inner fence
is crossed after hf lare has been reached, the cooper-
ative control remains active as well, but the aircraft
is commanded to climb to hf lare + 1m, as it is
considered unsafe continue flying at such a low alti-
tude. Flare is only resumed when the UAV is inside
the inner fence and at least 3m above the landing
platform.
While the UAV is in flare mode, an abort is also
triggered if the communication lag exceeds 0.3s,
resulting in the same actions as if the UAV has left
the inner fence. A too high lag would result in unreli-
able data for the position of the ground vehicle, and a
landing would be too risky.
If, at any point in the manoeuvre, the UAV crosses
the outer fence, i.e. reaches the red zones in Fig. 25,
the manoeuvre is aborted altogether, and the UAV
flies in runway direction while climbing to an altitude
of 20m, before resuming the waypoint pattern. The
UAV will not resume the landing manoeuvre without
a command from the operator.
During the entire landing manoeuvre, after the start
command was given by the operator, no further input
614 J Intell Robot Syst (2017) 88:597–618

Fig. 25 Geometrical conditions for state machine logic (side view)

is required from the operator. However, at any point
the operator is able to initiate a go-around by a manual
command, resulting in the same go-around manoeuvre
that is performed when the UAV leaves the outer
fence. During the go-around, whether it was initiated
automatically or manually, the operator can also com-
mand a landing again, but this command only has an
effect if the UAV is inside the outer fence.
The landing was successfully performed multiple
times. The required landing precision of ±0.8m was
consistently achieved.
As described in Section 9, the landing manoeu-
vre was automatically controlled via a high-level state
machine logic. During a typical successful landing
manoeuvre sequence, the different states are passed

10 Landing Experiments

As described in [3] and [6], the proposed landing

system has been successfully tested in a number of
simulation experiments, including a so-called Hard-
ware In the Loop (HIL) test setup, where the real
ground vehicle was used together with a virtual air-
craft. The concept allowed for an investigation of the
expectable landing system performance with very lit-
tle risk involved, since only a virtual aircraft was
performing the landing manoeuvre. With the suc-
cessful execution of the HIL-experiments, the next
set of experiments was initiated, including the final
experimental setup as illustrated in Fig. 26. Fig. 26 Experimental setup for final landing experiments
J Intell Robot Syst (2017) 88:597–618
Fig. 27 Relative vehicle positions during exemplary landing
attempt
through successively in the following order: Way-
pointMode, Descent, Flare, Retard, and GroundLock.
This sequence will generate a descent path within the
previously defined “outer fence” (non-red areas of
Fig. 25). The desired landing airspeed was set to 21 ms
throughout all performed landing experiments. In the
following one exemplary landing attempt is described
in detail.
The relative vehicle positions during the exemplary
landing attempt are shown in Fig. 27.
As can be seen, the state machine has entered the
flare (relative altitude ¡ 5m) at around 25s into the
landing manoeuvre. At that moment the required pre-
cision of ±0.8m in x- and y-direction (red dotted lines)
was not given and an automatic retry command is
Fig. 28 Relative vehicle velocities during exemplary landing attempt (right: vertical zoom)
615
issued. The aircraft is thus commanded to climb above
6m in order to start the second approach. During the
second approach the relative x- and y-error remain
within the required bounds and the landing is achieved
with a touchdown at around 48s. The exponential flare
law is nicely visible in the altitude profile between sec-
ond 26 and 46. The effect of retard and ground lock
mode activation can be seen during the last two sec-
onds before the touchdown at around 46s, where the
relative altitude decreases rapidly. After second 48 the
aircraft is lying in the landing platform (slightly nega-
tive relative altitude due to downwards extended net),
the small oscillations occurred during the decelera-
tion process. The relative vehicle velocities during the
exemplary landing attempt are shown in Fig. 28:
As can be seen, the manoeuvre starts with a rela-
tive x-velocity (blue line) of around 21 ms , where the
ground vehicle starts accelerating at around 10s into
the landing manoeuvre and reaches the UAV veloc-
ity at around 18s. The aircraft is descending with a
constant vertical velocity (red line) of around −1 ms
between second 6 and 25, which corresponds to the
commanded 3◦ descent slope. The retry command
can be clearly seen at around 25s, where the air-
craft is commanded to climb above 6m for a second
attempt. The vertical velocity profile during the flare
is also visible as an exponential curve between se-
cond 30 and 48 (see right image in Fig. 28). The
small oscillations after the touchdown at around 48s
are due to the aircraft bouncing slightly on top of
the landing platform during the deceleration process.
Figure 29 shows the successful touchdown onto the
landing platform.
616 J Intell Robot Syst (2017) 88:597–618

Fig. 29 Successful touchdown on top of the landing platform

The ground vehicle velocity tracking performance fence margins just after crossing hf lare at 5m altitude,
during the selected landing attempt is shown in it will try to recover the horizontal misalignment while
Fig. 30, demonstrating the validity of the human actu- maintaining altitude and minimizing parasitic effects
ator concept. on the horizontal controller performance.
After the first set of landing experiments were con-
cluded, a couple of changes have been implemented
to further improve the performance of the landing sys-
tem. The initially applied constant climb angle of 10◦
during a low-retry (below hf lare ) was affecting the
system performance, as it would induce a rather abrupt
climb manoeuvre, even if the aircraft was still high
above the landing platform. Although the flight con-
troller is able to decouple aircraft responses in velocity
and altitude, sudden changes are not always perfectly
handled. An adaptive climb angle was therefore intro-
duced, where the UAV would only climb abruptly
when close to the landing platform and smoother when
further away:
π
γclimb = (hf lare − h) · (27)
72
This results in a hold altitude behavior at h =
hf lare and a commanded climb angle of 12.5◦ at h = Fig. 30 Ground vehicle desired velocity vs. actual velocity for
0m. Therefore if the aircraft is pushed out of the inner the selected landing attempt
J Intell Robot Syst (2017) 88:597–618
Fig. 31 Comparison of relative state estimates based on 1. GPS
data exchanged via the network (red), 2. pure optical marker
tracking (green), and 3. combined solution by sensor data fusion
(blue). At t = 0s the touchdown is performed
Another important modification consisted in the
introduction of vision-based state estimation data into
the active control loops. The methods have been
described in Section 3. Figure 31 shows the results of
a recently performed landing experiment where vision
data was used for control.
As can be seen, all three solutions lie close together
with very small deviations during the last meters
before touchdown. The optical marker tracking works
well down to a relative altitude of around 1m, where
the markers cannot be tracked anymore. It should
be noted, that even though a very precise RTK-GPS
system was used during these experiments, the rel-
ative position estimates depend on the accuracy of
the lag estimate which could possibly induce smaller
errors. The comparison of the GPS-based solution to
the purely vision-based estimates confirms the proper
functionality of the lag correction method. The fused
solution is optimally suited for a use in the coupled
controller, as it accounts for GPS or vision system
outages and ensures a continuous mode of operation.
A landing with degraded GPS performance is there-
fore also possible, which significantly increases the
reliability and safety of the landing system.
11 Conclusions and Outlook
The landing of a fixed-wing UAV on top of a mobile
ground vehicle has been analyzed and algorithms for
the cooperative control of both vehicles were pro-
posed. Extensive simulations of the landing manoeu-
617
vre have been performed, and it was shown that the
proposed cooperative control algorithms are effec-
tive and the landing manoeuvre in general is feasible.
The inclusion of the relevant effects, such as the
aerodynamic influence of the ground vehicle, greatly
increased the confidence in the simulation results. The
simulation results have been validated by first cooper-
ative landing experiments using a HIL-test setup with
the real ground vehicle and a simulated aerial vehicle
[3].
The final landing manoeuvre has been success-
fully executed multiple times. The landing was pos-
sible with an accuracy of less than 0.8m, which is
precise enough to perform safe and repeatable land-
ing manoeuvres with the current setup. Synchronized
close proximity flight was possible with position-
ing accuracies of less than 0.8m despite the ground
vehicle induced aerodynamic disturbance, which was
found to correspond well to the predictions from CFD
simulations (as presented in [3]). Thereby the aircraft
was fully immersed in the ground vehicle induced
aerodynamic disturbance. The flight controller effi-
ciently compensated for the UGV flow effect. The
relative state estimation system worked reliably, the
inclusion of vision data resulted in an increased oper-
ational safety. The ground lock mechanism performed
as expected and secured the aircraft in the landing plat-
form during the deceleration phase until a full stop was
reached. Nevertheless, the locking mechanism needs
to be reworked for a use on large scale aircraft as
explained in Section 6.
It can be concluded that automated landings on the
mobile platform are feasible with the current exper-
imental setup and that the system is suitable for a
practical application. The next steps will include the
adaptation of the system to a large scale aircraft, where
an appropriate mechanical interface is required for the
final ground lock phase, possibly including active atti-
tude tracking. This task will be initiated once the final
aircraft specifications are available, as the ground lock
mechanism will significantly differ from on aircraft to
another.
Acknowledgments The first author would like to thank Felix
Huber, Jonatas Sant’Anna Santos, Stojan Stevanovic, and Dr.
Tobias Praßler for their strong and essential support during the
landing experiments. This work was partially supported by the
European Commission FP7 ICT Programme under the project
EC-SAFEMOBIL 288082.
618
References
1. Lütjens, K.H., et al.: Airport2030 – Lösungen für den
effizienten Lufttransport der Zukunft Deutscher Luft- und
Raumfahrtkongress (2012)
2. Rohacs, D., et al.: Evaluation of Landing Characteristics
Achieved by Simulations and Flight Tests on a Small-
scaled Model Related to Magnetically Levitated Advanced
Take-off and Landing Operations. International Council of
the Aeronautical Sciences (2014)
3. Muskardin, T., et al.: Landing of a Fixed-wing UAV on a
Mobile Ground Vehicle. IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation (2016)
4. Muskardin, T., et al.: A Novel Landing System to Increase
Payload Capacity and Operational Availability of High
Altitude Long Endurance UAV. International Conference
on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (2016)
5. Balmer, G.: Modelling and Control of a Fixed-wing UAV
for Landings on Mobile Landing Platforms. Master’s thesis,
KTH Royal Institute of Technology (2015)
6. Persson, L.: Cooperative Control for Landing a Fixed-Wing
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle on a Ground Vehicle. Master’s
thesis, KTH Royal Institute of Technology (2016)
7. Kloeckner, A.: Geometry based flight dynamics modelling
of unmanned airplanes. AIAA Modeling and Simulation
Technologies (MST) Conference Boston (2013)
8. Lambregts, A.A.: Vertical flight path and speed control
autopilot design using total energy principles. AIAA paper
83–2239 (1983)
9. Lambregts, A.A., Creedon, J.F.: Development and flight
evaluation of automatic flare laws with improved touch-
down dispersion. AIAA paper 80–1757 (1980)
10. Laiacker, M., et al.: Vision Aided Automatic Landing Sys-
tem for Fixed Wing UAV. Intelligent Robots and Systems
(IROS) Tokyo (2013)
11. Wagner, D., Schmalstieg, D.: Artoolkitplus for pose track-
ing on mobile devices. 12th Computer Vision Winter
Workshop (CVWW’07), pp. 139–146 (2007)
12. Tanaka, H., Sumiand, Y., Matsumoto, Y.: A high-accuracy
visual marker based on a microlens array. Intelligent Robots
and Systems (IROS), pp. 4192–4197 (2012)
13. Drela, M., Youngren, H.: Athena Vortex Lattice. http://
raphael.mit.edu/avl (2004)
14. Drela, M., Youngren, H.: XFOIL. http://raphael.mit.edu/
xfoil (2000)
15. Lambregts, A.A.: Generalized automatic and augmented man-
ual flight control. BerlinTechnicalUniversity Colloquium (2006)
16. Kastner, N., Looye, G.: Generic TECS based autopilot
for an electric high altitude solar powered aircraft. CEAS
EuroGNC (2013)
Tin Muskardin received his diploma in aerospace engineering
from the University of Stuttgart in 2009. He is currently a mem-
ber of the Flying Robots research group at the Robotics and
Mechatronics Institute of the German Aerospace Center DLR.
His main research interests are flight control of fixed-wing
unmanned aircraft and cooperative control of multi-robot systems.
J Intell Robot Syst (2017) 88:597–618
Georg Balmer received his Master’s degree in aerospace engi-
neering from KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm in
2015. He is currently a member of the Flying Robots research
group at the Robotics and Mechatronics Institute of the German
Aerospace Center DLR. His main research interests are flight
control of fixed-wing unmanned aircraft and mission planning
under consideration of weather influences.
Linnea Persson received her Master’s degree in control and
robotics from KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm in
2016. She is currently a doctoral student at the Automatic Control
department at KTH, working within the topic of autonomous
transportation systems. Her main research interests are in the
optimization and control of distributed, multi-agent systems.
Sven Wlach received his diploma in aerospace engineering
from the University of Stuttgart in 2015. He is currently a
member of the Flying Robots research group at the Robotics
and Mechatronics Institute of the German Aerospace Center
DLR. His main research interests are high altitude and flexible
unmanned aircraft.
Maximilian Laiacker received his diploma in computer sci-
ence from the Technical University of Berlin in 2009. He is
currently a member of the Flying Robots research group at the
Robotics and Mechatronics Institute of the German Aerospace
Center DLR. His main research interests are vision based state
estimation, collision avoidance and sensor fusion for flying robots.
Anibal Ollero is Full Professor at the University of Seville,
Spain. He is also the head of the University of Seville Robotics,
Vision and Control research group and the Scientific Director
of the Center for Advanced Aerospace Technologies (CATEC)
in Seville, Spain. He received his PhD in Engineering and his
Electrical Engineering degree from the University of Seville in
1980 and 1976 respectively. He was also Full Professor at the
Spanish Universities of Santiago and Malaga; and researcher at
LAAS-CNRS in Toulouse, France, and at Carnegie Mellon Uni-
versity in Pittsburgh, PA, USA. He is the coordinator of several
national and international projects.
Konstantin Kondak is the head of the Flying Robots research
group at the German Aerospace Center (DLR) Institute of
Robotics and Mechatronics in Wessling, Germany. He received
his Computer Science degree from the Technical University
of Berlin (TUB) in 1999. He also received his PhD and post-
doctoral degree in Robotics from the same university in 2001
and 2006, respectively. He was also the head of the Real-Time
Systems and Robotics research group at TUB (representative
full professorship) working on different subjects in computer
science and robotics, including exoskeletons and UAVs. He
participates in several national and international projects.