PX4 Dev Call: Sep 30, 2026 (Team sync, and Community Q&A)

PX4 Sync / Q&A - 2026-09-30T15:00:00Z

This week: 85 PRs merged | 162 awaiting review | 0 new bugs


Announcements

MAVSDK v4 Release


Events


Dev Call Items

  • None

Release

Updates:

Status: Test Flights in progress for v1.18.0-rc1, pending flights are

  • NXP Tropic FMU
  • Fixed Wing Vehicle

Issues:

Decisions:

We will be waiting for the test team to wrap up the rc1 test campaign before we cut a new rc2 and make focus testing, we think we can have a stable v1.18 release by early November


PRs Merged This Week

85 PRs merged this week →

PRs Awaiting Review

162 PRs awaiting review →


New Bug Reports

  • No new bugs

Other New Issues

9 new issues →


Q&A

Ibrahim: Is there any simulation for PX4?

Hououin Kyouma: Where can I start contributing?
Test Flights for v1.18 are a good place to start, beyond that search the issue list by labels.


Action Items

Q&A proposal: distinguishing first observable anomaly from first relevant divergence in PX4 ULog analysis

In recent log-analysis cases, an estimator or sensor consistency anomaly can appear well before the visible control loss or failsafe event.

I’d be interested in discussing whether there is a recommended PX4-side methodology for separating:

  • earliest observable anomaly,
  • first relevant divergence in the incident sequence,
  • downstream failsafe detection,
  • and an actual causal conclusion.

In particular, which estimator/control/status signals do PX4 developers consider most reliable for reconstructing this sequence without over-interpreting temporal precedence as causality?