Feedback Summary

Ahmed - Structure/Organization

7/10 - Very good but no section was made for Technical Description and Novelty

Ahmed - Use of figures/charts/tables

7/10 - No Acronyms section and page 9 wrong figure used

Ahmed - System level testing

7/10 - Very good but some details were required

Ahmed - Novel approach to mission requirements

7/10 - Included at the beginning but not detailed

Ahmed - Description of system level safety issues

7/10 - Very good but some details were required

Ahmed - Identification of potential failure modes

7/10 - Very good but some details were required

Ahmed - Project risk mitigation plan

7/10 - Very good but some details were required

Ahmed - List of milestones

4/10 - Not detailed

Ahmed - Schedule

7/10 - Diagram not clear

Ahmed - Project budget

4/10 - Under estimated for something that can lift 10kg payload

Khouri - Structure/Organization

7/10 - follows order of conops - some sections missing

Khouri - Use of figures/charts/tables

7/10 - formatting could be better but otherwise ok

Khouri - References

7/10 - only one besides conops

Khouri - Alternate Solutions

4/10 - does discuss alternate solutions but it's pretty basic 

Khouri - Features and Capabilities

7/10 - talk about some aspects and why they chose them, but seems like that can't be everything

Khouri - Communications and Control

7/10 - missing team communication

Khouri - BVLOS Strategy

7/10 - missing team communication

Khouri - Pickup/Dropoff Methodology

7/10 - good but needs more detail

Khouri - Navigation Strategy

7/10 - no diagram

Khouri - Safety

0/10 - nothing about safety at the depot/clinics

Khouri - System level testing

4/10 - not a lot of detail

Khouri - Novel Approach to Mission Requirements

7/10 - seems like an interesting approach, doesn't explicitly sell it as novel though 

Khouri - Emphasizes Novel Elements

0/10 - doesn't explicitly highlight anything novel

Khouri - System level safety issues

4/10 - named 2 but with minimal detail

Khouri - Identification of potential single point failure modes

4/10 - short list with not a lot of detail

Khouri - Project risk mitigation plan

4/10 - only 3 risks

Khouri - List of milestones

0/10 - only 3 risks

Khouri - Schedule

4/10 - Can't tell what the Gantt says but it looks pretty basic

Khouri - Project Budget

4/10 - extremely limited

Bukal - Use of figures/charts/tables

7/10 - Minor issues - some labels on wrong page. Figure 3.2 flowchart has 2 yes's from one box. Some figures hard to read.

Bukal - References Provided/Correct

4/10 - Limited use of references.

Bukal - Analysis of alternate solutions

7/10 - Requirements capture performed. Limited discussion of alternate designs.

Bukal - Features and capabilities

4/10 - Lacking in detail about the UAV airframe and ground station.

Bukal - Communications and control

4/10 - Some C2 links not identified (FPV?). No mention of checklists/team comms.

Bukal - BVLOS Strategy

7/10 - Does not address long-range communcation concerns.

Bukal - Pickup/dropoff methodology

7/10 - Does not outline how QR codes will be read.

Bukal - Navigation Strategy

0/10 - Does not outline navigation strategy specific to tasks.

Bukal - Safety

0/10 - Safety considerations for operating near ground personnel not addressed.

Bukal - Systems level testing

4/10 - Limited system tests implemented in development process.

Bukal - Novel approach to mission requirements

4/10 - Section missing, some points awarded for use of fixed-wing to prioritize range and endurance.

Bukal - Emphasizes Novel Elements

4/10 - LITERALLY NO COMMENTS HERE??

Bukal - System level safety issues

4/10 - Very limited discussions of system level safety issues

Bukal - Single point failure modes

4/10 - Limited analysis of SPFMs

Bukal - Project risk mitiation plans

4/10 - Very limited RMP in place

Bukal - List of milestones

0/10 - Section missing

Bukal - Schedule

4/10 - Gannt chart hard to read, no discussion of schedule.

Bukal - Project budget

7/10 - Budget not in depth.

Espenant - Use of figures/charts/tables

7/10 - Limited number, good representation of ideas.

Espenant - References

4/10 - Two refs, one of which is Conops

Espenant - Analysis of alternate solutions

4/10 - Very high-level assessment of options, not clear how they decided FW is better

Espenant - Features and capabilities

4/10 - Details of autopilot…but it's just an autopilot.  Own gimbal design at high level, but why?

Espenant - Communications and control

4/10 - High level explain re telemetry and comms, nothing unique.  No mention of team comms.

Espenant - BVLOS Strategy

4/10 - Auto guidance, little details

Espenant - Navigation Strategy

4/10 - Auto by waypoints, limited details, nothing new

Espenant - Safety

4/10 - Limited comms failure info. No consideration of flight around tents

Espenant - System level testing

4/10 - Very high level

Espenant - Emphasizes novel elements

4/10 - Safety firmware.  Lots of info of guidance and computer vision presented, doesn't seem new

Espenant - Description of system level safety issues

4/10 - Two IDd, only one described limited.  No personnel, response to crashes, etc

Espenant - Potential single point failure modes

4/10 - Only comms link failures, limited details

Espenant - Project risk mitigation plan

7/10 - Three tech and programmatic risks, limited details

Espenant - List of milestones

0/10 - Unreadable in the included Gantt chart

Espenant - Schedule

4/10 - Gantt chart with no predecessors, text unreadable

Espenant - Project Budget

4/10 - Gantt chart with no predecessors, text unreadable

Stinson - Use of figures/charts/tables

7/10 - Gantt chart thought to read and follow. Figure 4 mislabeled. No detail on FW a/c

Stinson - References

7/10 - 4 conops and 1 other reference

Stinson - Analysis of alternate solutions

7/10 - Heavy focus on comms and very limited on aircraft. No diagram / dimensions - will it fit in the tent? Package mechanism not compared

Stinson - Features and capabilities

4/10 - Comms addressed. Package logistics not addressed to enough detail. Noted they will deliver 3 packages instead of 4

Stinson - BVLOS Strategy

7/10 - No ADSB reference in BVLOS, interesting approach, 

Stinson - Pickup/dropoff methodology

7/10 - FW will fly but will it deliver a package? Will it fit in tent? relying on CV - Yolo, no mention of reading QR codes

Stinson - Navigation Strategy

7/10 - 2 paragraphs - no mention of pilot in emergency. BVLOS flight will be strong for this team w/o packages delivered

Stinson - Safety

4/10 - No ADSB reference in BVLOS, not addressing people/clinics

Stinson - System level testing

4/10 - needs more detail - risk matrix, expanded delvierables on testing each phases - i.e. ID of package & transport / delivery

Stinson - Novel approach to requirements

7/10 - Not specifically addressed. Comms could be the strength on this team and custom controller 

Stinson - Emphasizes novel requirements

7/10 - Not specifically addressed. On its own merit the CV Yolo and neural learnign is very interesting

Stinson - System level safety

4/10 - Is there an 'overconfidence' around comms system, lacking attention to safety

Stinson - Single point failure modes

4/10 - Not specifically addressed, expect these will become prevelant as testing begins

Stinson - Project risk mitigation plan

4/10 - If comms and effective BVLOS is goal then those risks seem prepared, activity, people, tents needs attention

Stinson - List of milestones

4/10 - difficult to read in pdf. 

Stinson - Schedule

7/10 - more detail around each test phase would help clarify go/no go readiness

Stinson - Budget

7/10 - Not sure this is realistic - $500 for entire system, no cost on gimbal, dropper, neural training etc

TC - Grammar/Spelling

7/10 - A few mistakes or awkward wordings but nothing major

TC - Figures/Charts/Tables

7/10 - While they weren't alwas super helpful, they did include a number of figures to highlight technical info

TC - References

7/10 - Only 2 references, one being the CONOPS and the other a paper for their CV system, but used correctly

TC - Analysis of Alternate Solutions

7/10 - They provided different options and a very basic analysis

TC - Features and Capabilities

4/10 - They really only talk to the computer vision system, nothing on the aircraft itself. Seems like the A/C is a bed for their novel software

TC - Communications and controls

4/10 - 900 MHz link, but not clear if that is used for telemtery and video and manual control or how it is being implemented

TC - BVLOS Strategy

7/10 - Resonably detailed on how the autopilot is integrated with the various sensors, but only really focuses on the CV and not much else

TC - Pickup/Dropoff Methodology

7/10 - Figure is nice and seems like a nice simple solution, but lacking detail

TC - Navigation Strategy

4/10 - Standard waypoint following, via GPS, but no mention of how it works (I assume it's just through their Flight Management Software) or other details

TC - Safety

4/10 - I would have wanted to see a lot more here. They identified some very high level issues, but no details. 

TC - System Level testing

4/10 -As above, they identified high level firmware testing, and that some flight testing will be done. Not  a lot of details here

TC - Novel approach to mission requirements

7/10 - All in one system is interesting rather than having a separate ground vehicle

TC - System level safety issues

4/10 - Provided some info but not many details on mitigations other than what they do when it happens. No mention of COVID safety

TC - Single point failure modes

4/10 - They identified some areas, but didn't give many details on how they would prevent them. More operational risks. 

TC - Project risk mitigation plan

0/10 - Not really mentioned

TC - List of milestones

4/10 - Indirectly listed in the gantt chart (presumably, I couldn't actually read it)

TC - Schedule

4/10 - Provided a Gantt chart, but impossible to read

TC - Budget

7/10 - Seemed reasonable enough, if a bit sparse

Khouri

31

43

7

12

8

50.67

Ahmed

31

77

17

21

15

83.75

Bukal

31

33

8

12

11

45.92

Espenant

28

38

14

15

8

51.42

Stinson

34

50

14

12

18

63

TC

31

41

17

8

15

54.75

Average Score

31

47

12.83

13.33

12.5

58.25167

Average Percent Score

78%

59%

64%

44%

42%

N/A