Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5393
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5393
29 Sep 2026
 | 29 Sep 2026
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Measurement Techniques (AMT).

Horizontal wind estimation from consumer-drone hover telemetry: comparing machine-learning and calibration approaches

Alexander Polle, Lukas Grosch, Alexandros Panagiotis Poulidis, Mihalis Vrekoussis, and Thorsten Warneke

Abstract. Mounting external anemometers on small uncrewed aerial vehicles adds payload weight and complicates flight operations. During hover, horizontal wind can instead be derived from the drone tilt required to hold position. We compare two such tilt-based approaches using flight telemetry from an unmodified DJI Air 3S. Ridge regression fits a linear model to pitch- and roll-derived features and requires reference measurements for training, while a calibration baseline converts mean tilt to wind speed using quadratic curves fitted during separate near-calm flights and requires no reference anemometer during deployment. Both methods were evaluated across 50 hover sessions in Bremen, Germany, against a reference anemometer 1.6 m above ground. The sessions yielded 71,749 overlapping 30 s windows. Session-mean wind speeds ranged from 0.8 to 7.6 m s−1, and the highest 30 s vector-mean speed was 11.5 m s−1. In leave-one-flight-out cross-validation, Ridge had a speed root-mean-square error (RMSE) of 0.32 m s−1 and a direction mean absolute error (MAE) of 7.0°, compared with 0.39 m s−1 and 8.4° for the baseline. For session-mean winds above 2 m s−1, direction MAE was 6.0° for Ridge and 7.0° for the baseline, close to the estimated 5–7° directional uncertainty of the reference setup. Across the six sessions above 6 m s−1, Ridge and the baseline had similar speed RMSEs of 0.49 and 0.48 m s−1. Tree-based models (XGBoost and LightGBM) did not improve upon Ridge. Hover telemetry can therefore provide accurate horizontal wind estimates without dedicated payload sensors. Further validation is needed for other airframes, greater heights, and sustained stronger winds.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Share
Alexander Polle, Lukas Grosch, Alexandros Panagiotis Poulidis, Mihalis Vrekoussis, and Thorsten Warneke

Status: open (until 04 Nov 2026)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Alexander Polle, Lukas Grosch, Alexandros Panagiotis Poulidis, Mihalis Vrekoussis, and Thorsten Warneke

Data sets

Wind estimation from DJI Air 3S hover telemetry: dataset and code Alexander Polle, Lukas Grosch, Alexandros Panagiotis Poulidis, Mihalis Vrekoussis, and Thorsten Warneke https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19098691

Model code and software

Wind estimation from DJI Air 3S hover telemetry: dataset and code Alexander Polle, Lukas Grosch, Alexandros Panagiotis Poulidis, Mihalis Vrekoussis, and Thorsten Warneke https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19098691

Alexander Polle, Lukas Grosch, Alexandros Panagiotis Poulidis, Mihalis Vrekoussis, and Thorsten Warneke
Metrics will be available soon.
Latest update: 29 Sep 2026
Download
Short summary
We estimated horizontal wind from the hover tilt of a DJI Air 3S without adding a wind sensor. Across 50 near-surface sessions, a model trained against a nearby wind sensor had errors of 0.32 metres per second for speed and 7.0 degrees for direction. A calibration-flight method was less accurate overall, but gave similar speed accuracy in the six strongest-wind sessions and required no wind sensor during deployment. Other aircraft, heights, and sustained stronger winds remain to be tested.
Share