With reference to Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), consider the following statements: 1. All types of UAVs can do vertical landing. 2. All types of UAVs can do automated hovering. 3. All types of UAVs can use battery only as a source of power supply. How many of the statements given above are correct?

Says an aeroplane can reach remote places provided a landing place is available — implying some aircraft require a prepared landing area (runway) rather than vertical touchdown.

A student could combine this with basic knowledge that many UAVs are fixed-wing like aeroplanes to suspect fixed‑wing UAVs generally need runways and hence cannot land vertically without special design.

Discusses landing rights and major air terminals with sophisticated equipment, implying conventional aircraft operations rely on airports/landing infrastructure.

Use this to reason that vehicles designed for conventional airport operations (including some UAVs) are unlikely to perform vertical landings without different infrastructure or design.

Explains vertical motion under gravity — establishes the concept of 'vertical' motion as distinct and requiring controlled up/down movement.

A student can combine this physics idea with aircraft control requirements to infer vertical landing needs specific thrust/vectoring or rotors, unlike standard forward-flight fixed‑wing control.

Contrasts vertical-axis vs horizontal-axis designs, showing that axis/orientation of rotating components affects motion characteristics.

Extend this to aircraft propulsion/rotor design: vertical-axis (rotorcraft/VTOL) enable vertical lift, whereas horizontal-axis (conventional propellers/engines) support forward flight and not necessarily vertical landing.

Mentions development of an unmanned probe (Chandrayaan) — an example of an unmanned vehicle built for specific mission profiles, implying diversity in unmanned vehicle designs and functions.

Combine this with the fact that different unmanned designs serve different roles to conclude not all UAVs share the same landing capability; some are not intended to land vertically or at all.

Mentions an unmanned probe (Chandrayaan) being developed for automated space exploration, showing that some unmanned vehicles are designed for autonomous operations.

A student could generalise that unmanned craft can be automated and then compare space-probe control requirements with those for atmospheric hovering to judge applicability to UAVs.

Describes an Automated Weather Station as a self-operating system using sensors to record data without human intervention, illustrating that small platforms can be automated using sensors and control logic.

A student could infer that similar sensor+control approaches enable hover-capable automation in some UAVs and then check which UAV types carry appropriate sensors/actuators.

Notes GAGAN and NavIC satellite navigation systems that provide accurate real-time positioning and timing, implying availability of precise positioning data usable by airborne vehicles.

A student could reason that access to precise positioning makes automated station-keeping (hovering) more feasible for UAVs equipped to use such systems, then examine which UAV classes can integrate them.

States that highly sophisticated equipment is required at major air terminals to avoid aerial collisions, indicating that maintaining stable positions and avoiding hazards demands complex avionics and automation.

A student could extend this to conclude that automated hovering likely requires comparable sophistication and thus may not be present in all UAV types, prompting a check of equipment levels across UAV classes.

Describes aircraft manufacturing and operations requiring elaborate infrastructure and facilities, highlighting that different aircraft types vary greatly in complexity and support needs.

A student could use this pattern to suspect that capability (like automated hovering) depends on vehicle complexity/type and available systems, so not every UAV will have that feature.