AI Assistant
Notifications
Clear all

My First Drone Photogrammetry Project

32 Posts
19 Users
0 Reactions
2,414 Views
jhframe
(@jim-frame)
Posts: 7465
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

I've been watching drone developments as well, though I still don't see a business case for it yet. One thing that I don't understand is how all these urban projects are getting drone-mapped when one of the FAA restrictions is that you can't fly over people who aren't part of the mapping effort. Are the mapping companies getting waivers, or are they just breaking the law?


 
Posted : March 28, 2017 10:20 am
SReeserinPA
(@sreeserinpa)
Posts: 123
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Jim Frame, post: 420660, member: 10 wrote: I've been watching drone developments as well, though I still don't see a business case for it yet. One thing that I don't understand is how all these urban projects are getting drone-mapped when one of the FAA restrictions is that you can't fly over people who aren't part of the mapping effort. Are the mapping companies getting waivers, or are they just breaking the law?

My bet is both ....


 
Posted : March 28, 2017 10:30 am
bow-tie-surveyor
(@bow-tie-surveyor)
Posts: 821
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

FL/GA PLS., post: 420634, member: 379 wrote: [USER=6939]@Bow Tie Surveyor[/USER]

What type of tablet are you using? Everything I've read suggested the ipad mini 4. But it doesn't seem to have a GPS chip unless you buy one with cellular capabilities?
I doubt I'll ever use "follow me" but would like GPS.

Recommends from Android lovers (me) are more than welcome.

I am using an iPad Mini 2 (Wifi version with 32GB). Not having a GPS chip has not been to much of an issue. I usually switch on my iPhone hotspot to download maps for my project area and with that it gives an approximate location of the tablet.


 
Posted : March 28, 2017 11:27 am
bow-tie-surveyor
(@bow-tie-surveyor)
Posts: 821
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Jim Frame, post: 420660, member: 10 wrote: I've been watching drone developments as well, though I still don't see a business case for it yet. One thing that I don't understand is how all these urban projects are getting drone-mapped when one of the FAA restrictions is that you can't fly over people who aren't part of the mapping effort. Are the mapping companies getting waivers, or are they just breaking the law?

They have that rule, but it may be tough for them to enforce unless its a blatant violation (i.e. flying a few feet over someone's head). The strict rule says that you cannot fly directly over any part of a non-participant. If you miss them by 6 inches, that's seems to be ok. If you are 300 feet up, its kinda hard to tell unless you are over a large group of people (like in a stadium). Also, flying over moving vehicles seems to be a gray area as well. My takeaway on that is you need to have sufficient risk management practices to reduce the likelihood that it could come down on somebody or a moving vehicle. If it does come down on someone or a moving vehicle, expect a fine from the FAA (and probably get sued as well).


 
Posted : March 28, 2017 11:42 am
makerofmaps
(@makerofmaps)
Posts: 560
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Parked vehicle ok. Moving vehicle not ok.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_work_business/
Fly for Work/Businesshttps://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efaa%2Egov%2Fuas%2Fgetting%5Fstarted%2Ffly%5Ffor%5Fwork%5Fbusiness%2F&apos ;">
Below are the basic things an operator must know for flying under the small UAS rule (14 CFR part 107):

Pilot Requirements:

  • Must be at least 16 years old
  • Must pass an initial aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center+
  • Must be vetted by the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA)
    +A person who already holds a pilot certificate issued under 14 CFR part 61 and has successfully completed a flight review within the previous 24 months can complete a part 107 online training course at https://www.faasafety.gov/&apos ;">www.faasafety.gov to satisfy this requirement.

For more information, read about https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_work_business/becoming_a_pilot/&apos ;">Remote Pilot Certification.

Aircraft Requirements:

Operating Rules:


 
Posted : March 28, 2017 11:49 am

beuckie
(@beuckie)
Posts: 349
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

[USER=6455]@jim[/USER] : i've been using services from a drone companu for volume measurements and as-builts control jobs. Last week a drone Company flew the outside of a church which i scanned indoors. He is still calculating though.


 
Posted : March 28, 2017 11:56 am
bow-tie-surveyor
(@bow-tie-surveyor)
Posts: 821
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

makerofmaps, post: 420668, member: 9079 wrote: Parked vehicle ok. Moving vehicle not ok.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_work_business/
Fly for Work/Businesshttps://plus.google.com/share?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efaa%2Egov%2Fuas%2Fgetting%5Fstarted%2Ffly%5Ffor%5Fwork%5Fbusiness%2F&apos ;">
Below are the basic things an operator must know for flying under the small UAS rule (14 CFR part 107):

Pilot Requirements:

  • Must be at least 16 years old
  • Must pass an initial aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge testing center+
  • Must be vetted by the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA)
    +A person who already holds a pilot certificate issued under 14 CFR part 61 and has successfully completed a flight review within the previous 24 months can complete a part 107 online training course at https://www.faasafety.gov/&apos ;">www.faasafety.gov to satisfy this requirement.

For more information, read about https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_work_business/becoming_a_pilot/&apos ;">Remote Pilot Certification.

Aircraft Requirements:

Operating Rules:

You cant fly from a moving vehicle. But they only state that a stationary vehicle is a suitable shelter for non-participants. I far as I know there are no direct prohibitions for flying over moving vehicles, but it could be inferred from the rules.

Drone U just put a video on this topic. As would be expected from the government, the interpretation depends on who you ask at the FAA.

[MEDIA=youtube]y5PXb_XHOxQ[/MEDIA]


 
Posted : March 28, 2017 12:07 pm
makerofmaps
(@makerofmaps)
Posts: 560
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

From the federal register. I would say this makes it pretty clear.
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-15079/p-1001

This rule will allow flight over people located under a covered structure capable of protecting a person from a falling small unmanned aircraft because such a structure mitigates the risk associated with a small unmanned aircraft flying over people. The FAA also agrees with Edison Electric Institute, NRECA, the American Public Power Association, and Continental Mapping that a small unmanned aircraft should be allowed to fly over a person who is inside a stationary covered vehicle that can provide reasonable protection from a falling small unmanned aircraft. The FAA has modified this rule accordingly. This rule will not, however, allow operation of a small unmanned aircraft over a moving vehicle because the moving vehicle operating environment is dynamic (not directly controlled by the remote pilot in command) and the potential impact forces when an unmanned aircraft impacts a moving road vehicle pose unacceptable risks due to head-on closure speeds. Additionally, impact with a small unmanned aircraft may distract the driver of a moving vehicle and result in an accident


 
Posted : March 29, 2017 8:04 am
chris-mills
(@chris-mills)
Posts: 715
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Worldwide the rules don't appear to make distinctions between rotary and fixed wing aircraft. If a rotary suffers power failure it will come down on whatever is underneath it, hence being above vehicles is important. If a fixed wing suffers power failure the cahces are it will glide down, perhaps reaching the ground some 500 metres away from the failure position : it is never going to fall vertically so the rule about being above doesn't make sense in this case.

I'm not sure what the relative failure rates are, but I would guess that rotary failures per 100 flying hours are much greater than fixed wing.

I don't envy the FAA and other authorities their task in trying to come up with logical and sensible rules.


 
Posted : March 29, 2017 8:49 am
Monte
(@monte)
Posts: 857
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

I have been spending all my free time trying to get an image from drone deploy into Carlson point cloud for weeks now. You guys make it seem so easy. Where do I need to go to learn what I am doing wrong?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


 
Posted : March 29, 2017 9:12 am

bow-tie-surveyor
(@bow-tie-surveyor)
Posts: 821
Member
Topic starter
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

makerofmaps, post: 420797, member: 9079 wrote: From the federal register. I would say this makes it pretty clear.
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-15079/p-1001

This rule will allow flight over people located under a covered structure capable of protecting a person from a falling small unmanned aircraft because such a structure mitigates the risk associated with a small unmanned aircraft flying over people. The FAA also agrees with Edison Electric Institute, NRECA, the American Public Power Association, and Continental Mapping that a small unmanned aircraft should be allowed to fly over a person who is inside a stationary covered vehicle that can provide reasonable protection from a falling small unmanned aircraft. The FAA has modified this rule accordingly. This rule will not, however, allow operation of a small unmanned aircraft over a moving vehicle because the moving vehicle operating environment is dynamic (not directly controlled by the remote pilot in command) and the potential impact forces when an unmanned aircraft impacts a moving road vehicle pose unacceptable risks due to head-on closure speeds. Additionally, impact with a small unmanned aircraft may distract the driver of a moving vehicle and result in an accident

Well, you could say that is just commentary that did not make it into the actual rule. Even then, you can fly over moving vehicles, just not over the part that a person happens to be occupying. However, It looks like it would be safer to manually fly the roadway projects and play "Drone Frogger" until they get things cleared up.


 
Posted : March 29, 2017 12:32 pm
rfc
 rfc
(@rfc)
Posts: 1966
Member
Translate
English
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Chinese
Japanese
Korean
Arabic
Hindi
Dutch
Polish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thai
Swedish
Danish
Finnish
Norwegian
Czech
Hungarian
Romanian
Greek
Hebrew
Indonesian
Malay
Ukrainian
Bulgarian
Croatian
Slovak
Slovenian
Serbian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Estonian
 

Jim Frame, post: 420660, member: 10 wrote: Are the mapping companies getting waivers, or are they just breaking the law?

They may be applying for waivers, but they're not getting them. As far as I can tell NO waivers have been approved since 1/23/17 (Day after the Inauguration), and to that date, only several hundred had been approved.


 
Posted : March 29, 2017 1:17 pm
Page 2 / 2