Week 01 · reflection
Week 1 UAS Evidence Log
This is your first Drone Engineering evidence log.
The purpose is not to write a journal entry about whether drones are interesting. You can think drones are interesting. That is fine. It is also not evidence.
The purpose is to show that you can use the Week 1 model:
- a drone is part of a UAS;
- missions need boundaries;
- authority and safety are separate from capability;
- aircraft categories should be matched to mission evidence;
- recommendations need limitations.
What you are submitting
Submit one evidence log for one mission scenario.
Choose one:
- roof inspection after a storm;
- practice field water mapping;
- walking-trail erosion check;
- construction progress imagery;
- another school-safe mission approved by your instructor.
Do not describe an unsupervised real flight. If you use a real location as a scenario, write as a planning and evidence-analysis exercise.
Required evidence labels
Use these exact labels.
1. Mission product
Write one or two sentences naming what the UAS is supposed to produce.
Example:
The mission product is a labeled image set showing standing water on the east practice field after heavy rain. The intended user is the grounds staff member deciding which areas need drainage review.
2. UAS system trace
List the system parts.
| Part | Your note |
|---|---|
| Aircraft category | |
| Payload | |
| Ground control | |
| Communication link | |
| Operator/team role | |
| Operating boundary | |
| Data product | |
| Main risk |
The notes do not need to be long. They need to be specific.
3. Responsible-use boundary
Write the planned area, excluded area, authority needed, and at least three no-go conditions.
Use this sentence starter if helpful:
This course task is a planning and evidence-analysis exercise. It does not authorize real flight. A real operation would require...
Then finish the sentence with the approvals, supervision, and checks that matter.
4. Platform decision matrix
Complete the matrix.
| Criterion | Multi-rotor | Fixed-wing | Hybrid VTOL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Payload fit | |||
| Movement pattern | |||
| Endurance need | |||
| Operating area | |||
| Boundary control | |||
| Evidence quality | |||
| Total |
Use 3, 2, 1, or 0.
Do not leave the numbers unexplained. Add one sentence after the matrix explaining the most important rating.
5. Recommendation
Write one paragraph.
Use this structure:
For [mission], [category] is the best starting category because [mission-based evidence]. [Second category] has [strength], but [reason it is less suitable here]. This recommendation depends on [authority, safety, operating boundary, and data condition].
6. Limitation statement
Write at least one limitation.
Examples:
- This analysis uses broad aircraft categories, not a specific aircraft model.
- This analysis does not verify current law, airspace, weather, or site permission.
- This analysis assumes the mission product is still images.
- This analysis does not authorize flight.
A limitation statement is required. Engineering recommendations become dangerous when they pretend to prove more than they actually prove.
Worked mini-example
Mission product:
The mission product is an overhead image set showing standing water on the practice field for grounds staff.
System trace:
| Part | Note |
|---|---|
| Aircraft category | Multi-rotor |
| Payload | Standard camera |
| Ground control | Controller or app showing position and battery |
| Communication link | Short-range command and telemetry link |
| Operator/team role | Qualified supervisor controls any real operation; student task is planning |
| Operating boundary | Practice field only |
| Data product | Labeled images of water locations |
| Main risk | People entering the field during the planned operation |
Important matrix rating:
Multi-rotor receives a 3 for movement pattern because the mission needs controlled positioning over specific field areas, not long-distance travel.
Recommendation:
For field water mapping, a multi-rotor is the best starting category because the mission needs controlled low-speed positioning and clear images of specific wet areas. A fixed-wing aircraft has better endurance, but the field is a bounded site where careful positioning matters more than long-distance coverage. This recommendation depends on real authority, supervisor approval, people-free boundaries, acceptable weather, safe battery condition, and data-handling approval.
Limitation:
This analysis does not authorize real flight or verify current airspace, law, weather, site permission, or a specific aircraft model.
That is the level of thinking expected. Not perfect. Specific.
Self-check before submitting
Read your evidence log and ask:
- Did I name the mission product?
- Did I treat the drone as one part of a UAS?
- Did I include the operator, boundary, and data product?
- Did I separate capability from authority?
- Did I include no-go conditions?
- Did my recommendation explain why the category fits?
- Did I include a limitation?
If the answer to any question is no, fix that part before submitting.
What good evidence sounds like
Good evidence sounds like:
The mission needs stable close images, so a multi-rotor fits the movement pattern better than fixed-wing.
Weak evidence sounds like:
I picked multi-rotor because it is easier.
Good evidence sounds like:
The analysis assumes still images. If the mission required thermal data, the payload and aircraft choice would need review.
Weak evidence sounds like:
This drone can do everything.
No, it cannot. Nothing does everything. That is why engineering exists.
Final reflection
Finish these three prompts.
- The biggest difference between a UAV and a UAS is...
- One boundary I did not think about before this week was...
- My recommendation is limited because...
Keep each answer short, but make it specific to your mission scenario.
Your Week 1 work is complete when your evidence log could be handed to another student and they could tell what mission you chose, what system you modeled, what category you recommended, and what your evidence does not prove.