the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Horizontal wind estimation from consumer-drone hover telemetry: comparing machine-learning and calibration approaches
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.
- Preprint
(978 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(319 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-5393', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Nov 2026
- RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-5393', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Nov 2026
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
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 384 | 169 | 46 | 599 | 85 | 40 | 54 |
- HTML: 384
- PDF: 169
- XML: 46
- Total: 599
- Supplement: 85
- BibTeX: 40
- EndNote: 54
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Answers to to teh review aspects:
1. Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of AMT?
Yes, as the topic of using rotor UAS for airborne wind measurement has not reached a common ground in understanding its worth and short comings.
2. Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data?
The authors apply an advances regression method compared to a basic method regarding the uncertainties, which is a fair approach and the kind of discussion the community needs to understand the worth and shortcomings of this measurement setup.
3. Are substantial conclusions reached?
The summary explicitly mentions uncertainties in the methods used, highlighting the advantages of the more complex approach. The process of arriving at these figures raises several questions that have not been discussed, or have been discussed insufficiently. Unfortunately, the discussion that would put these findings into context is missing from the comparison with other studies (Chapter 4.3).
4. Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined?
The main reference (Hoerl and Kennard, 1970) is unfortunately behind a pay wall and thus cannot be checked by the reviewer. In the paper the basics of this method are not summed up; the term “Ridge” is not introduced. Assumptions how to handle the inherent turbulence of the atmosphere were not found.
5. Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions?
The scope of the data set for the two methods being compared appears to differ significantly. If the authors can adequately demonstrate that this difference does not significantly influence the final conclusions, then this review question can be answered in the affirmative.
6. Is the description of experiments and calculations sufficiently complete and precise to allow their reproduction by fellow scientists (traceability of results)?
Overall, the calculation method is described in sufficient detail. The reviewer notes the absence of an accurate description of the measurements in coordinate systems commonly used in aviation in accordance with ISO 1151; however, this practice is widespread in the field of rotor-UAS-based wind measurement.
7. Do the authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution?
Yes.
8. Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper?
Yes.
9. Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary?
Almost a “yes,” but a very brief description of the ‘Ridge’ and “tree-based models” methods is missing. The chosen language is too self-referential and rooted too deeply in community slang.
10. Is the overall presentation well structured and clear?
Reasonable
11. Is the language fluent and precise?
Mostly fair, but in several places, the wording is too brief, and lacks interrelations, e.g., chapter 5 Conclusions.
12. Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations, and units correctly defined and used?
As mentioned in answer 6 a proper definition of the coordinate systems is missing, for instance using a graphic presentation.
13. Should any parts of the paper (text, formulae, figures, tables) be clarified, reduced, combined, or eliminated?
No.
14. Are the number and quality of references appropriate?
The sources cited are comprehensive and appropriate.
15. Is the amount and quality of supplementary material appropriate?
The appendix is extensive and detailed, but on its own it is not particularly easy to read and is only sporadically referenced in the main text.
General remarks:
The term “telemetry” is describing the mean of transporting/accessing the data but does not explain the fact of using the flight controller data. Please think about changing this for the whole paper.
Questions and specific remarks:
Line 24: There is no justification for restricting a copter that is anchored in an earth-fixed coordinate system.
Line 54ff: Please discuss if a reference sensor height of 1.6 m is appropriate regading your assumptions especially when looking at the distance to the hill slope edge in fig. 2a.
Line 56: Please specify “downwind”.
Line 59: The geometric setup of the UAS (X or cross configuration) is not explained. The assumption of a behaviour independent from the relative flow angle to the shall be mentioned explicitly.
Line 61f: Was the intra sectional variance somehow taken into account?
Line 83: Contribution of the mobile compass uncertainty to the overall outcome?
Line 94, this is related to the intra sectional variance line 61f: “Errors decreased …” Please discuss this statement and the outcome in S 1.6 in view of an inherent turbulent atmosphere.
Chapter 2.4: Please discuss the difference of the scope of the baseline data in relation to the later used data for the Ridge analysis.
Table 2: Please explain/discuss these values explicitly regarding the interpretation of the mean values in relation to their uncertainty, e.g., wat does a “Direction MAE” of 7° mean in relation to its uncertainty of +/-4.9°?
Chapter 4.3: Please discuss this comparison a bit more detailed and try to discuss the differences to your outcome.