Data distributors and services providers have established themselves as a key component of the Earth Observation (EO) value-chain and an important partner of the EO satellite operators in order to disseminate data to the largest number of end-users possible, according to a new report. This is particularly apparent in accessing key fast growing regional markets and being able to do business with government and private end-users locally.
According to Euroconsult’s new research report, “Earth Observation: Data Distribution,” an estimated 12-17 percent of the $1.5 billion commercial data market flows through the distributors. It is considered that all major vertical market sectors are procuring from the data distributors to varying degrees.
“While this percentage may seem low, it should be recalled that the majority of the total market is to defense end-users [65%] who prefer a more direct approach to receive imagery, such as through direct receiving stations. Business for the data distributor reflects this, with a far greater emphasis on enterprise markets,” said Philippe Campenon, deputy director, Space and Earth Observation at Euroconsult.
Revenue through data services from the distributors is first from civil governments, totaling 47 percent of distributor data business. This highlights the need to be local in accessing civil contracts, an important consideration given the growing demand globally for EO solutions. Data provision to the private sector through distribution is also disproportionality higher than the total data market, representing 37 percent of the distributors business.
The relatively small figure of 16 percent data revenues associated to defense users demonstrates the more direct approach preferred by this user community. Most operating companies with very high resolution satellites offer direct receiving stations solutions to defense end-users in order to meet their requirements of secure, continuous data supply with degrees of autonomy in satellite tasking and data acquisition, and short delivery time.
To reach out to all user sectors it is therefore considered a necessity to have a diverse approach in mechanisms for data distribution, the report said. This is reflecting in the type of distribution offering. In total, there are more than 550 active data distribution agreements signed globally with local companies. These contracts are classified in five categories within the report, addressing the rationale, contract conditions and key metrics for the following:
Data Resellers
Value-Added Resellers (VARs)
Exclusive Distributors (or Channel Partners)
Business Partners
Direct Receiving Station Partners
Interviews were conducted with 15 data distributors with a mean presence in the sector of 19 years. Companies ranged from data distribution being their primary business to organizations active in other parts of the EO value-chain. The following topics are reviewed in detail:
Motivation for setting up a data distribution business line
The distributors’ offer to the satellite operators
The relationship between satellites operators and the distributors
Data distributor customer mix
Importance of key client requirements
Technology as a market driver/inhibitor
Ranking the vertical markets driving data sales and services
Airbus Defence and Space has mobilized five observation satellites to aid in the search for the missing Malaysian Airlines plane. The Boeing 777 disappeared on March 8 during a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.
The day after the aircraft disappeared,the very high-resolution Pléaides 1A and 1B satellites, the high-resolution SPOT 5 and 6 satellites, and the synthetic aperture radar satellites TerraSAR-X were programmed to take images of the search zone. All the data collected are analyzed by Airbus Defence and Space maritime experts and provided to the Malaysian Remote Sensing Agency (MRSA).
The Pléiades images are also transferred via CNES, and TerraSAR-X images via DLR, to the Chinese Meteorological Administration, which requested the Disaster Charter activation on March 11.
Since Sunday, March 9, the experts of Airbus Defence and Space have been analyzing the images taken by the optical and radar satellites. The radar satellites like TerraSAR-X are able to identify layers of hydrocarbon as well as any oil slick or metallic objects floating on the sea. The resolution of the optical satellites Pléiades 1A & 1B (50 cm after resampling) and SPOT 5 and 6 allow for identification and characterization of small objects over large surfaces.
TomTom has today announced its speed cameras service is now available in Brazil. Drivers will benefit from up-to-date warnings of nearby fixed and red light cameras, as well as speed enforcement zones.
Car manufacturers can integrate the service in their in-dash and mobile navigation systems, TomTom said. Backed by OpenLR* technology, TomTom is able to pinpoint more than 17,000 speed cameras across Brazil.
“Drivers in Brazil are now better equipped to make smarter decisions on every journey, keeping to the designated speed limit and avoiding costly fines,” commented Ralf-Peter Schaefer, VP of Traffic at TomTom. “The launch of this service adds to the real-time information available to Brazilian drivers; TomTom recently launched its world-class traffic information in Brazil, helping drivers avoid frustrating traffic jams and reach their destination faster.”
March 7, 2014 Update: WASHINGTON, D.C.–The Federal Aviation Administration today issued a notice appealing a decision by an NTSB Administrative Law Judge in the civil penalty case, Huerta v. Pirker. “The FAA is appealing the decision of an NTSB Administrative Law Judge to the full National Transportation Safety Board, which has the effect of staying the decision until the Board rules. The agency is concerned that this decision could impact the safe operation of the national airspace system and the safety of people and property on the ground.”
————————————
On March 6, 2014, Federal Judge Patrick Geraghty dismissed a case the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) brought against Raphael Pirker, accusing Pirker of illegally using a drone to make a video of the University of Virginia. The FAA attempted to levy a fine of $10,000 against Pirker, described in an article published in Geospatial Solutions in December 2013.
Brendan Schulman, Pirker’s attorney, told Geospatial Solutions, “The FAA’s position on this is based on a policy statement, not an enforceable regulation.”
1. Neither the Part 1, Section 1.1, or the 49 U.S.C. Section 40102(a)(6) definitions of “aircraft” are applicable to, or include a model aircraft within their respective definition.
2. Model aircraft operation by Respondent was subject only to the FAA’s requested voluntary compliance with the Safety Guidelines stated in AC 91-57.
3. As Policy Notices 05-01 and 08-01 were issued and intended for internal guidance for FAA personnel, they are not a jurisdictional basis for asserting Part 91 FAR enforcement authority on model aircraft operations.
4. Policy Notice 07-01 does not establish a jurisdictional basis for asserting Part 91, Section 91.13(a) enforcement to Respondent’s model aircraft operation, as the Notice is either (a) as it states, a Policy Notice/Statement and hence non-binding, or (b) an invalid attempt of legislative rulemaking, which fails for non-compliance with the requirement of 5 U.S.C. Section 533, Rulemaking.
5. Specifically, that at the time of Respondent’s model aircraft operation, as alleged herein, there was no enforceable FAA rule or FAR Regulation applicable to model aircraft or for classifying model aircraft as an UAS.
Upon the findings and conclusions reached, I hold that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss must be AFFIRMED.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be, and hereby is: GRANTED
2. Complainant’s Order of Assessment be, and hereby is: VACATED AND SET ASIDE
3. This proceeding be, and is: TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE.
ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
Trimble is adding to its airborne LiDAR portfolio with the Trimble AX60i and AX80. Both are highly capable, versatile systems that meet the demands of aerial survey operators for corridor and wide area mapping projects, Trimble said.
The new airborne systems, together with flight planning and analysis software tools, have been designed to provide rapid and efficient point cloud capture as well as high-resolution images and proven workflows with high productivity. The systems can be installed on either fixed wing or rotary aircraft.
Designed for low-altitude corridor mapping applications, the Trimble AX60i is an entry-level LiDAR system built on the same versatile platform as the high-altitude AX60 system, Trimble said. The platform allows AX60i users to upgrade to an AX60 in the future. The AX60i can be operated up to 5,000 feet above ground level (AGL) while offering a 400-kHz laser pulse repetition rate (PRR) with a single-channel, downward-looking laser.
The Trimble AX80 is a dual-channel LiDAR system that can be operated up to 15,500 feet AGL and is designed for the most demanding survey applications from high-altitude wide area mapping to detailed low-altitude corridor mapping. The AX80 offers an 800-kHz PRR with revolutionary forward- and backward-looking capability to enhance point density on the ground and improve image resolution. This two-dimensional oblique view offers unparalleled scanning of vertical facades of structures.
Trimble’s AX80 aerial imaging system.
An optional, fully-calibrated 80-Megapixel camera with forward motion compensation can be added to the AX60i and AX80 systems. The camera is integrated into the sensor head package and harmonized with the laser sub-system so that it does not need re-calibration each time the system is fitted to an aircraft.
These systems are optimized for precision applications, providing a uniform distribution of laser points across the entire field-of-view to widen the usable swath width. Operators can reduce track overlap or duplication, or fly at higher altitudes to achieve a given resolution. Together with a high-precision positioning system, integral power supplies and an in-flight monitoring tool, the Trimble AX60i and AX80 can allow operators to lower the complexity of airborne LIDAR surveys while increasing the quality of the output.
“The Trimble AX60i and AX80 systems extend our portfolio of aerial imaging solutions to meet a variety of mapping applications,” said Phil Sawarynski, business area director of Imaging Solutions for Trimble’s Geospatial Division. “They have been designed as true end-to-end solutions and are delivered with Trimble flight planning software and Trimble Inpho analysis software. Because everything is supplied by Trimble, operators can have confidence that the complete solution works together properly, and that the flight planning and post-mission analysis suites will enable them to provide a high-quality service to their customers.”
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with other federal agencies, has posted new Idaho U.S. Topo quadrangles (1,193) and New Mexico quads (1,980 maps), which include the Public Land Survey System (PLSS). These are added to the growing list of states west of the Mississippi River to have PLSS data added to U.S. Topo maps.
The PLSS is a way of subdividing and describing land in the United States. All lands in the public domain are subject to subdivision by this rectangular system of surveys, which is regulated by the U.S. Department of the Interior. Other selected states will begin getting PLSS map data during the next respective revision cycle.
The new design for U.S. Topo maps improves readability of maps for online and printed use, while retaining the look and feel of the traditional USGS topo map. Map symbols are easy to read when the digital aerial photograph layer imagery is turned on.
Santa Fe, New Mexico 2013 U.S. Topo quadrangle, showing PLSS data with contour, orthoimage and woodland layers off. Note: “US Topo maps are not legal documents. The PLSS information shown on these maps is for general reference purposes only, and should not be used to determine legal boundaries or land ownership. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the authoritative source for PLSS information at the federal level, and the US Topo representation is derived from BLM GIS data files. The management of these data is not completely uniform throughout the country.
“It is a privilege to support production of the U.S. Topo maps, as I am an extensive user of these products,” said Kristin Fishburn, a geographer with the USGS. “The capability to turn layers on and off combined with the continuous enhancements in content makes the maps particularly useful for a recreational user. I’m excited to peruse the new Idaho and New Mexico maps.”
Other re-design enhancements and new features include:
New shaded relief layer for enhanced view of the terrain
Military installation boundaries, post offices and cemeteries
New road classification
A slight screening (transparency) has been applied to some features to enhance visibility of multiple competing layers
New PDF legend attachment
Metadata formatted to support multiple browsers
U.S. Topo maps are created from geographic datasets in The National Map, and deliver visible content such as high-resolution aerial photography, which was not available on older paper-based topographic maps. The new maps provide modern technical advantages that support wider and faster public distribution and on-screen geographic analysis tools for users.
The digital topographic maps are PDF documents with geospatial extensions (GeoPDF) image software format and may be viewed using Adobe Reader, available as a no-cost download.
These new quads replace the first-edition U.S. Topo maps for Idaho and New Mexico. The replaced maps will be added to the USGS Historical Topographic Map Collection, which are also available for free download from The National Map and the USGS Map Locator & Downloader website.
US Topo maps are updated every three years. The initial round of the 48 conterminous state coverage was completed in September of 2012. Hawaii and Puerto Rico maps have recently been added. More than 400 new US Topo maps for Alaska have been added to the USGS Map Locator & Downloader, but will take several years to complete.
After I published last month’s Is It Legal to Fly Drones for Mapping in the United States? article, I received a bit of reader feedback and attended a small conference focused on UASs for mapping. I learned and experienced a few new thoughts about UASs for mapping in the United States, so I thought I’d share them in a second installment.
In early December, I attended the UAS Precision Farming Forum, a local conference that was sponsored by Yamhill County (Oregon) and targeted at the agriculture market. Yamhill County covers 718 square miles (1,860 square kilometers) and contains a healthy number of agricultural and vineyard farms.
The conference was filled to capacity with 120 attendees, a complete lineup of speakers, and even a couple of exhibitors — not bad for a county-hosted local conference. This, and other such conferences around the United States, speaks volumes about the intense interest in UASs for agricultural uses in the U.S. For instance, the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) hosts an annual conference that attracts more than 8,000 attendees.
At the Yamhill conference, I was most interested in hearing what speakers, attendees and exhibitors were saying about the FAA rules on civilians flying UAVs. The FAA is pretty clear (at least when responding to me and others) about the rules for civilian use.
First of all, the most prolific user of UASs for mapping in Oregon seems to be Oregon State University, who possess eight Certificates of Authorization (CoA) from the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) to operate UASs for research purposes, according to Dr. Michael Wing, associate professor of Geomatics. Dr. Wing explained that applying for a CoA from the FAA is an intense process requiring a lot of detail.
PROJECT
SITE
PLATFORM
SENSOR
PARTNERS
Forest Canopy/Structure
McDonald Forest
Prioria Maveric
EO
n-Link
Search and Rescue
McDonald Forest
Aerospace Vapor/VTOL
EO/IR
n-Link
Xmas Tree Research
OSU No. Willamette
Mikrokopter VTOL
EO
OSU, n-Link
Potato Research
HAREC
Lockheed/Procerus
EO/IR
Boeing, n-Link, USDA
Potato Research
HAREC
Tetracam HawkEye
EO/IR
Boeing, n-Link, USDA
Large Scale Potato Res.
Boardman
Lockheed/Procerus
EO/IR
Boeing, n-Link, USDA
Large Scale Potato Res.
Boardman
Tetracam HawkEye
EO/IR
Boeing, n-Link, USDA
Flight Research
Olympia
Tetracam HawkEye
Boeing, n-Link
Dr. Wing also presented the bill of materials (BOM) for one of the UASs they are using, a Zephyr II.
RiteWing Zephyr II – 54″ Wingspan
Zephyr II components (per OSU):
2.4GHz Tx/Rx radio
$360
4500mAh LiPo battery
$30
Airspeed sensor
$25
ArduPilot APM 2.5
$160
Canon S100
$300
RiteWing Zephyr II
$325
TTC Radio
$86
uBlox GPS module
$76
Voltage regulator
$15
Total:
$1,377
When I asked Dr. Wing about the CoA restrictions, he said the CoAs require him to have an FAA-licensed pilot on site for each mission.
If you recall from last month’s article, the FAA was very clear in responding to my queries that civilian commercial operation of UASs in the U.S. are prohibited unless the operator possesses a CoA from the FAA. Furthermore, the FAA says that commercial operation of UASs in the U.S. airspace is not allowed. The FAA is working on rules to integrate commercial UAS operation into the U.S. NAS (National Airspace System). The local AUVSI president, in his keynote speech, essentially said the same thing.
I went to the exhibition area because I wanted to talk to the exhibitors and understand who their target market was, since commercial operations of UASs are prohibited. Their answers were interesting. Their first answer was that “farmers can fly UAS as hobbyists.” Recall that hobbyists (or modelers as the FAA refers to them) can operate UASs up to 400 feet above ground level (AGL). I asked the FAA specifically about this. They say that any commercial usage of UASs is prohibited. For example, you can take the same UAS that you fly for fun, and you are permitted to fly it below 400 feet AGL. However, once you use the same UAS for commercial purposes (such as mapping your farm), you are violating the FAA rules.
When I pushed the vendor about this, his next answer was “as long as the farmer only flies it above his or her farm, they are allowed.” While I can sort of understand the logic behind his first statement, this statement didn’t make sense to me. If he’s using it for a commercial purpose, what difference does it make if it is over his own property or not? The problem I have with the vendor’s attitude is that he has little risk. It’s not against the FAA rules to sell UASs for commercial purposes. FAA rules are only violated when someone uses a UAS for commercial purposes. The bottom line: caveat emptor (buyer beware). The FAA is likely not going to pursue the manufacturer or distributor of the UAS, only the operator (the farmer).
But, is it really against FAA rules to operate commercial UASs in the U.S.? The vendor claimed that he asked the FAA, and said that you will get a different answer from the FAA depending on who you speak to. To some extent, I understand the confusion. Furthermore, when I asked the FAA to cite examples of litigation, enforcement actions, etc., I was told I would need to file a Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA), which I did about November 12. Beyond acknowledging my request, the FAA has sent nothing. I’m told from others that they have made similar requests (months ago) and have still not received the FOIA information. This certainly casts a cloud of doubt over the confidence the FAA has in its position.
Has anyone actually tested the FAA’s position in court?
Thanks to Twitter, I linked up with an attorney who is representing a UAS operator who is being sued by the FAA for flying a UAS for commercial purposes in the United States. Attorney Brendan M. Schulman says his client’s case is the first to test the FAA rules in court. Mr. Schulman says that the FAA has no basis on which to enforce the rules. He’s arguing that the “FAA’s position is based on policy statement and not an enforceable regulation.”
Schulman’s client, Raphael Pirker, a Swiss citizen and resident, was assessed a $10,000 fine pursuant 49 U.S.C. §§46301(a)(1) and (d)(2) and 46301(a)(5). The FAA argues that Pirker:
1. On or about October 17, 2011, you were the pilot in command of a Ritewing Zephyr powered glider aircraft in the vicinity of the University of Virginia (UVA), Charlottesville,
2. The aircraft referenced above is an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS).
3. At all times relevant herein you did not possess a Federal Aviation Administration pilot certificate.
4. The aircraft referenced above contained a camera mounted on the aircraft which sent real time video to you on the ground.
5. You operated the flight referenced above for compensation.
6. Specifically, you were being paid by Lewis Communications to supply aerial photographs and video of the UVA campus and medical center.
7. You deliberately operated the above-described aircraft at extremely low altitudes over vehicles, buildings, people, streets, and structures.
8. Specifically, you operated the above-described aircraft at altitudes of approximately 10 feet to approximately 400 feet over the University of Virginia in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
9. For example, you deliberately operated the above-described aircraft in the following manner:
a. You operated the aircraft directly towards an individual standing on a UVA sidewalk causing the individual to take immediate evasive maneuvers so as to avoid being struck by your aircraft.
b. You operated the aircraft through a UVA tunnel containing moving vehicles.
c. You operated the aircraft under a crane.
d. You operated the aircraft below tree top level over a tree lined walkway.
e. You operated the aircraft within approximately 15 feet of a UVA statue.
f. You operated the aircraft within approximately 50 feet of railway tracks.
g. You operated the aircraft within approximately 50 feet of numerous individuals.
h. You operated the aircraft within approximately 20 feet of a UVA active street containing numerous pedestrians and cars.
i. You operated the aircraft within approximately 25 feet of numerous UVA buildings.
j. You operated the aircraft on at least three occasions under an elevated pedestrian walkway and above an active street.
k. You operated the aircraft directly towards a two story UVA building below rooftop level and made an abrupt climb in order to avoid hitting the building.
1. You operated the aircraft within approximately 100 feet of an active heliport at UVA.
10. Additionally, in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another, you operated the above-described aircraft at altitudes between 10 and 1500 feet AGL when you failed to take precautions to prevent collision hazards with other aircraft that may have been flying within the vicinity of your aircraft.
11. By reason of the above, you operated an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
“In this proceeding, the FAA uses those same policy statements as a pretext for applying federal aviation regulations to the operation of model airplanes. This approach violates the most basic tenets of regulatory law and the Administrative Procedures Act which require a valid notice and comment rulemaking process before legislative rules are issued. Both at the time of Mr. Pirker’s model aircraft operation in 2011, and still today, there exist no enforceable federal aviation regulations concerning the operation of civilian “drones,” whether that operation is for commercial purposes or otherwise. For the reasons set out below, the Administrator’s civil penalty is improper as a matter of law and the Complaint must be dismissed in its entirety.”
To view Schulman’s entire brief, click onFAA-v-Pirker. Per Schulman’s brief, he has asked the court to dismiss the case for reasons he outlines. He is awaiting the judge’s response. If the case is not dismissed, Schulman says the next step is discovery and a hearing.
On a related note, Schulman’s law firm, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, announced on December 18 that they launched a new practice group named Unmanned Aircraft Systems Practice Group. Following is the announcement:
In light of the increasing use of drones for commercial purposes, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP has launched a practice group dedicated to providing counsel to clients in this rapidly growing industry. The Unmanned Aircraft Systems Practice Group is a multidisciplinary team of Kramer Levin attorneys who are versed in the legal complexities of the nascent commercial drone revolution.
Emerging commercial drone technology presents a number of economic opportunities, as well as the prospect of enhanced worker safety in hazardous conditions, humanitarian benefits in search-and-rescue and disaster missions, and environmental advantages through improved agriculture, energy and infrastructure management. Kramer Levin’s new practice will provide sophisticated and creative problem-solving approaches in this uncharted legal territory.
“Unmanned aircraft technology will define the next century in countless industries in the United States and will present new legal challenges in a number of areas including regulatory policy, aviation law, property rights, and intellectual property law, to name a few,” said Paul S. Pearlman, Kramer Levin’s managing partner. “As the definitive leaders in this field, we saw an opportunity to formalize a practice area led by informed attorneys who can advise clients in a wide range of industries.”
The firm is currently representing Raphael Pirker, the world’s foremost civilian drone pilot, in the first federal case ever involving the operation of commercial drones in the United States. Kramer Levin attorneys also regularly advise individuals, corporations, venture capital firms, educational institutions and robotics developers worldwide on the use of unmanned aircraft technologies in commercial, educational, public interest and scientific applications.
“The landmark case we are litigating will have enormous regulatory and economic implications for the industry’s future,” said Brendan Schulman, special counsel at Kramer Levin who has two decades of hands-on experience with unmanned aircraft and understands how the technology works and how to apply it safely and effectively. “This is a game-changing moment for forward-thinking businesses, and we are here to assist our clients navigate legal issues so they can become the next decade’s pioneers in their industries.”
In addition to Mr. Schulman, the new practice area will include attorneys from a number of existing firm practice areas including corporate, environmental law, litigation, intellectual property, insurance, government relations, and regulatory issues.
I’ll keep you updated on the FAA v. Pirker case as it evolves.
Proteus FZC, a provider of satellite-derived mapping solutions, has delivered accurate bathymetric and seafloor classification maps for a joint UK-France amphibious military exercise on the Island of Corsica. In the pilot managed by the UK Hydrographic Office (UKHO), Proteus partnered with DigitalGlobe to derive accurate bathymetric measurements and identify four seabed types to a depth of 12 meters from multispectral satellite imagery without ground control.
“We completed the Corsica coastal marine mapping project at about one-tenth the time and cost of traditional sonar or LiDAR,” said Proteus CEO David Critchley. “Because the data is derived exclusively from satellite imagery, we leave no environmental footprint and face no airspace restrictions.”
For the joint military operation, the British and French armed forces requested detailed information about water depth and the submerged seabed along specific sections of the Corsican coastline so that amphibious military vehicles could be launched from larger vessels anchored offshore and safely landed on the island’s beaches. The custom maps created by Proteus were used by the military to select precisely where the landings would occur.
“The vertical accuracy of our bathymetric maps was verified at 10-15 percent of water depth,” said Critchley. “If ground truth data were available, the measurements would have been accurate to a solid 10 percent of depth.”
Working with eight-band multispectral image data with two-meter resolution collected by DigitalGlobe’s WorldView-2 satellite, the Proteus-led team achieved the bathymetric measurements in Corsica’s Mediterranean coastal zone to a total depth of 12 meters. In a separate processing procedure, the team also extracted four critical seafloor types from the imagery – sand, rock/debris, vegetation and mixed seabed.
Since 2011, Proteus has been producing seafloor survey and seabed classification projects using multispectral satellite imagery. The product generation technology that can be carried out in a fraction of the time and cost of traditional methods. These mapping projects have been delivered for environmental, oil and gas, marine biology and other coastal zone applications in Europe, the Middle East and Caribbean. Derived products have high accuracy, meeting the requirements of engineering, environmental monitoring and strategic geospatial planning applications.
The project was written up in the January/February 2013 issue of Hydro International magazine.
Leica Geosystems Inc. announced new BIM Field Trip solutions to help contractors extend the value of building information modeling (BIM) into the field and connect field information back to the model in the office.
Tailored to fit any stage of BIM adoption in concrete layout, MEP layout, quality assurance, renovation/retrofit, and operations/maintenance as-builting applications, BIM Field Trip includes customized packages of hardware and software that make it easy to move from 2D to 3D workflows to achieve common BIM goals such as reduced rework, increased predictability and higher profitability, the company said.
According to the announcement, the new BIM Field Trip solutions take full advantage of Leica Geosystems’ established precision measurement technologies, such as the trusted iCON robot 50 robotic total station and popular 3D Disto laser measurement tool, as well as the latest innovations. For example, the revolutionary “BIM One Box” Leica Nova MS50 MultiStation, introduced in June 2013, offers full-featured total station layout capabilities that can handle BIM layout points from Revit, AutoCAD or virtually any other BIM or CAD program with ease, while also integrating real-time delta reporting for quality assurance checks and high definition laser scanning capabilities for capturing as-built point clouds to be compared with the as-designed model.
The BIM Field Trip solutions are available in three basic levels to help companies bridge the gaps in their BIM processes.
BIM 101 is the simplest way to get started with digital layout using paper or CAD files as a starting point. Easy-to-use, highly accurate tools such as the 3D Disto, iCON robot 50, and DISTO handheld laser measuring devices combined with intelligent, intuitive field and office software create an easy on-ramp to BIM for preconstruction as-builting, concrete layout, MEP layout, preconstruction as-builting and quality assurance. (Learn the basics of digital layout in the BIM Learning Center.)
BIM 102 provides an intermediate-level solution to help contractors improve their BIM workflows. For preconstruction as-builting, industry-leading ScanStation high definition laser scanners capture existing building conditions in the form of near photorealistic, highly accurate point clouds that can be used directly in Revit for faster and more accurate modeling. For digital layout, high-precision iCON robot 50 robotic total stations combined with intuitive field software creates a “paint-by-numbers†installation in the field that reduces errors and provides a higher level of predictability of project outcomes. For MEP and interior BIM applications, the 3D Disto combined with specialized MEP software further simplifies and streamlines interior layout. And for preconstruction as-builting, layout and quality assurance, the innovative new “BIM One Box” Nova MS50 MultiStation performs robotic layout with ease while the field software tracks the layout locations. When quality control checks are performed, any deviations are identified in real-time with a BIM delta report and can be easily scanned with the same device, producing point clouds that are automatically oriented and positioned so they flow back into the model perfectly aligned. This substantially reduces post-processing so teams can focus on comparing field data with model data to avoid rework in the field.
BIM 103 is for contractors that are experienced in BIM and want to take their capabilities to the next level. Hardware solutions such as the innovative multistation, ultrafast high-definition laser scanners and high-precision robotic total stations are combined with full featured field and office software to create advanced 3D workflows that streamline and optimize preconstruction as-builting, construction layout, and quality assurance as-builting. What’s more, the innovative “BIM One Box” multistation introduces a new era of versatility in BIM workflows with the ability to use a single instrument for preconstruction as-built point cloud data capture, replicating highly accurate BIM layout points in the field, and then high-definition laser scanning for quality assurance as-builts for comparing with as-designed models to create a complete 3D BIM lifecycle.
At each level of the BIM Field Trip, hardware and software selections are tailored to the needs of the contractor and are easily scalable from one level to the next to provide practical solutions to common BIM challenges.
“For many project teams, the benefits of BIM stop in the office; there simply hasn’t been a total solution for BIM as-builting and construction layout that connects all the dots from the model to a real-world jobsite and then from the jobsite back into the model,” said Cathi Hayes, BIM Business Manager for Leica Geosystems. “The new BIM Field Trip solutions from Leica Geosystems close the gaps by connecting the digital world to the real world. This allows companies at any stage of BIM adoption to take advantage of improved workflows.”
Source: Hansen, Potapov, Moore, Hancher, et al, 2013
A multi-organizational team led by the University of Maryland has created the first high-resolution global map of forest extent, loss and gain. This free resource greatly improves the ability to understand human and naturally-induced forest changes and the local to global implications of these changes on environmental, economic and other natural and societal systems, members of the team say
According to the announcement, the team of 15 university, Google and government researchers reports a global loss of 2.3 million square kilometers (888,000 square miles) of forest between 2000 and 2012 and a gain of 800,000 square kilometers (309,000 square miles) of new forest.
Their study, published online on November 14 in the journal Science, documents the new database, including a number of key findings on global forest change. For example, the tropics were the only climate domain to exhibit a trend, with forest loss increasing by 2,101 square kilometers (811 square miles) per year. Brazil’s well-documented reduction in deforestation during the last decade was more than offset by increasing forest loss in Indonesia, Malaysia, Paraguay, Bolivia, Zambia, Angola and elsewhere.
“This is the first map of forest change that is globally consistent and locally relevant,” says University of Maryland Professor of Geographical Sciences Matthew Hansen, team leader and corresponding author on the Science paper.
“Losses or gains in forest cover shape many important aspects of an ecosystem, including climate regulation, carbon storage, biodiversity and water supplies, but until now there has not been a way to get detailed, accurate, satellite-based and readily available data on forest cover change from local to global scales,” Hansen says.
To build this first of its kind forest mapping resource, Hansen, UMD Research Associate Professor Peter Potapov and five other UMD geographical science researchers drew on the decades-long UMD experience in the use of satellite data to measure changes in forest and other types of land cover. Landsat 7 data from 1999 through 2012 were obtained from a freely available archive at the United States Geological Survey’s center for Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS). More than 650,000 Landsat images were processed to derive the final characterization of forest extent and change.
Source: Hansen, Potapov, Moore, Hancher, et al, 2013
The analysis was made possible through collaboration with colleagues from Google Earth Engine, who implemented the models developed at UMD for characterizing the Landsat data sets. Google Earth Engine is a massively parallel technology for high-performance processing of geospatial data and houses a copy of the entire Landsat image catalog. What would have taken a single computer 15 years to perform was completed in a matter of days using Google Earth Engine computing.
Hansen and his coauthors say their mapping tool greatly improves upon existing knowledge of global forest cover by providing fine resolution (30 meter) maps that accurately and consistently quantify annual loss or gain of forest over more than a decade. This mapping database, which will be updated annually, quantifies all forest stand-replacement disturbances, whether due to logging, fire, disease or storms. And they say it is based on repeatable definitions and measurements while previous efforts at national and global assessments of forest cover have been largely dependent on countries’ self-reported estimates based on widely varying definitions and measures of forest loss and gain.
Dynamics from local to regional to global scale are quantified. For example, subtropical forests were found to have the highest rates of change, largely due to intensive forestry land uses. The disturbance rate of North American subtropical forests, located in the Southeast United States, was found to be four times that of South American rainforests during the study period; more than 31 percent of U.S. southeastern forest cover was either lost or regrown. At national scales, Paraguay, Malaysia and Cambodia were found to have the highest rates of forest loss. Paraguay was found to have the highest ratio of forest loss to gain, indicating an intensive deforestation dynamic.
The study confirms that well-documented efforts by Brazil – which has long been responsible for a majority of the world’s tropical deforestation – to reduce its rainforest clearing have had a significant effect. Brazil showed the largest decline in annual forest loss of any country, cutting annual forest loss in half, from a high of approximately 40,000 square kilometers (15,444 square miles) in 2003-2004 to 20,000 square kilometers (7,722 square miles) in 2010-2011. Indonesia had the largest increase in forest loss, more than doubling its annual loss during the study period to nearly 20,000 square kilometers (7,722 square miles) in 2011-2012.
Hansen and colleagues say the global data sets of forest change they have created contain information that can provide a “transparent, sound and consistent basis to quantify critical environmental issues,” including the causes of the mapped changes in the amount of forest; the status of world’s remaining intact natural forests; biodiversity threats from changes in forest cover; the carbon stored or emitted as a result of gains or losses in tree cover in both managed and unmanaged forests; and the effects of efforts to halt or reduce forest loss.
For example, Hansen says, that while their study shows the efforts of Brazil’s government to slow loss of rainforest have been effective, it also shows that a 2011 Indonesian government moratorium on new logging licenses was actually followed by significant increases in deforestation in 2011 and 2012.
“Brazil used Landsat data to document its deforestation trends, then used this information in its policy formulation and implementation. They also shared these data, allowing others to assess and confirm their success,” Hansen says. “Such data have not been generically available for other parts of the world. Now, with our global mapping of forest changes every nation has access to this kind of information, for their own country and the rest of the world.”
Support for Landsat data analysis and characterization was provided by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the United States Geological Survey and Google, Inc. GLAS data analysis was supported by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Development of all methods was supported by NASA through its Land Cover and Land Use Change, Terrestrial Ecology, Applied Sciences and Measures programs (grants NNH05ZDA001N, NNH07ZDA001N, NNX12AB43G, NNX12AC78G, NNX08AP33A and NNG06GD95G) and by the United States Agency for International Development through its CARPE program.
High-resolution global maps 21st-century forest cover change, Science, Nov. 15, 2013, Vol 342 #6160, authors M. C. Hansen, P. V. Potapov, S. A. Turubanova, A. Tyukavina, L. Chini, C. O. Justice and J. R. G. Townshend of the University of Maryland; R. Moore, M. Hancher and D. Thau of Google, Inc.; S. V. Stehman of the State University of New York; S. J. Goetz of Woods Hole Research Center; T. R. Loveland of the United States Geological Survey; and A. Kommareddy, and A. Egorov of South Dakota State University.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released its first annual Roadmap outlining efforts needed to safely integrate unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into the nation’s airspace. The Roadmap addresses current and future policies, regulations, technologies and procedures that will be required as demand moves the country from today’s limited accommodation of UAS operations to the extensive integration of UAS into the NextGen aviation system in the future.
“Government and industry face significant challenges as unmanned aircraft move into the aviation mainstream,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “This Roadmap is an important step forward that will help stakeholders understand the operational goals and safety issues we need to consider when planning for the future of our airspace.”
According to the announcement, the Roadmap outlines the FAA’s approach to ensuring that widespread UAS use is safe, from the perspective of accommodation, integration, and evolution. The FAA’s main goal for integration is to establish requirements that UAS operators will have to meet in order to increase access to airspace over the next five to 10 years. The Roadmap discusses items such as new or revised regulations, policies, procedures, guidance material, training and understanding of systems and operations to support routine UAS operations.
“The FAA is committed to safe, efficient and timely integration of UAS into our airspace,” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. “We are dedicated to moving this exciting new technology along as quickly and safely as possible.”
The FAA reports that the Roadmap also addresses the evolution of UAS operations once all requirements and standards are in place and are routinely updated to support UAS operations as the National Airspace System evolves over time. The document stresses that the UAS community must understand the system is not static, and that many improvements are planned for the airspace system over the next 15 years.
The FAA plans to select six UAS test sites to begin work on safely integrating UAS into the airspace. These congressionally-mandated test sites will conduct critical research into how best to safely integrate UAS systems into the national airspace over the next several years and what certification and navigation requirements will need to be established.
The use of UAS, both at the designated test sites and in the national airspace generally, raises the issue of privacy and protection of civil liberties. In February, the FAA asked for public comments specifically on the draft privacy requirements for the six test sites. Today, the agency sent a final privacy policy to the FederalRegister that requires test site operators to comply with federal, state, and other laws on individual privacy protection, to have a publicly available privacy plan and a written plan for data use and retention, and to conduct an annual review of privacy practices that allows for public comment. Information about the test site selection process and final test site privacy policy is available at: http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/
For the next several years, the FAA will continue to use special mitigations and procedures to safely accommodate limited UAS access to the nation’s airspace on a case-by-case basis. The Roadmap notes that this case-by-case accommodation will decline significantly as integration begins and expands, but will continue to be a practical way to allow flights by some UAS operators in certain circumstances.
In addition to the FAA’s Roadmap, as required in the 2012 FAA Reauthorization, the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) has developed a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil UAS into the national airspace system.. That plan details a multi-agency approach to safe and timely UAS integration and coordination with the NextGen shift to satellite-based technologies and new procedures.
There is no doubt about it: drones (also referred to as UAVs and UAS) are a disruptive technology that will significantly impact geospatial professionals not only in the U.S., but around the world. While the mainstream media has mostly pushed the panic button with regards to privacy and drones, you don’t often read a discussion about using drones for mapping.
3D Matterhorn image produced from senseFly’s drone mapping effort.
In Switzerland, where drones weighing less than 30 kg (66 lbs) are legal to operate without a license as long as the operator maintains line of sight, drones mapped the famous Matterhorn Mountain (4,478 meters/14,692 feet) in the Swiss alps, at a resolution of 20 cm. This illustrates the power of drones for 3D mapping, and mapping in general. More efficient and less costly than traditional photogrammetry and airborne lidar, there is no doubt in my mind you will begin working with drones and/or data collected via drones in the near future. Of course, mapping the Matterhorn in 3D at 20-cm resolution is a monumental effort. Even using drones, senseFly reported that it took 11 flights, 5 hours and 40 minutes of flight time, and a total of 2,188 images to process covering 2,800 hectares (~6,920 acres). senseFly didn’t report how many manhours of post-processing the Matterhorn project required, but you know it must be a healthy number. Also, remember that Swiss regulations require that the drone operator must be within “direct eye contact” of the drone at all times, so you can bet the senseFly team had to do some serious mountain climbing.
While generating precise 3D images of a mountain certainly push the limits of drone technology, there are plenty of uses for mapping drones that make a lot of sense and are less complex. The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems (AUVSI) reports that in the United States, in the first three years of UAS integration more than 70,000 jobs will be created with an economic impact of $13.6 billion. AUVSI further reports that by 2025, the jobs number will increase to 100,000 jobs, and the economic value to $82 billion. Earlier this year, The Daily Beast reported that agriculture may end up being the largest user of drone technology. Other uses, according to AUVSI, include wildfire mapping, environmental mapping, disaster management, power-line surveys, oil and gas exploration, and general aerial mapping.
So what are we waiting for? Let’s start flying!
Not so fast. In many countries in the world, you can purchase a drone mapping kit and start flying tomorrow. Last month, I witnessed the massive offering of drones at the Intergeo 2013 conference. Copters and fixed-wing aircraft in all shapes and sizes were on display.
However, in the U.S. it’s not so easy. In fact, it’s illegal to operate any drone for mapping unless you have a special permit from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). If you think XYZ Corp. down the road who is using drones for mapping have such a permit, you are wrong. Despite the rumors and gossip you may have heard, and the fact that many companies are using drones for mapping in the U.S., it is not legal, by any stretch of the imagination.
Let’s have a look at what the FAA regulations state.
The FAA divides drone users into two categories: public and civil.
Public Users
Examples of public users by the FAA include the U.S. military and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, as well as other government agencies. Public users must apply for a Certificate of Waiver or Certificate of Authorization (COA) and adhere to the following guidelines:
The operator is required establish the drone’s airworthiness either from FAA certification, a Department of Defense airworthiness statement, or by other means.
The operator must demonstrate that a collision with another aircraft or other airspace user is extremely improbable.
The operator must comply with appropriate cloud and terrain clearance requirements.
The PIC (Pilot in Command), the operator in control of the drone, must maintain minimum qualifications and currency requirements.
An observer must be present to observe the drone and surrounding airspace via line-of-sight on the ground or via chase aircraft.
The PIC and observer must be within, generally speaking, one mile horizontally and 3,000 feet vertically of the drone.
Direct communications between the PIC and Observer must be maintained at all times.
As you imagine, these requirements are not easy to meet and issued to a select few entities. if you want to take a look at the list of Certificates of Authorization issued by the FAA, click here and scroll down to find links to redacted CoA awards that aren’t exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
As of February 15, 2013, the FAA reports there were 347 active COAs.
Civil Users
Civil users include any entity other than Public users, and includes commercial users.
Civil users must obtain an FAA airworthiness certificate just like you would need for any type of aircraft such as an airliner.
The FAA is issuing special airworthiness certificates in the experimental category for testing, market survey, and training of drones. The FAA is very clear that no Certificate of Authorization (CoA) or experimental certificates will be issued to commercial users. In fact, the FAA specifically states that drone users awarded an experimental certificate are not licensed to use drones for “hire or compensation.”
That’s it: short, sweet and to the point.
What about model aircraft users?
Interestingly enough, model aircraft users are allowed to operate drones and have a surprising amount flexibility in doing so. The guidelines for model aircraft users can be found here, but essentially the only concrete rules are that the “hobby” drone cannot exceed 400 feet AGL (above ground level), and that when flying within three miles of an airport, notify the airport operator. That’s it!
Even more interesting is that some hobby-class drones can be very useful for businesses. For example, last month I bought an AR Drone 2.o for US$370. The manufacturer calls it a quadracopter. It operates like a helicopter with four rotor blades. It’s controlled by an app that runs on your smartphone or tablet. I use a Samsung Galaxy III to control it. It’s amazingly easy to control with my smartphone.
AR Drone 2.0
I took the AR Drone 2.0 to the Field Technology Conference to demonstrate it and give conference attendees an idea of what is possible for very little expense. The response from attendees was a little surprising. I didn’t expect geospatial users to appreciate the limited capabilities of the AR Drone 2.0, but attendees spoke of applications like checking birds’ nests for eggs and close-up inspection of structures that aren’t easily accessible. After spending some time flying it, even I began to think about the inspection app and the ability to create video fly-throughs of golf courses, environmental areas, proposed developments, etc. The AR Drone 2.0’s forward-looking, high-definition camera generates stunningly crisp video.
So, that begs the question…
Why can’t a user, following the hobby rules (fly below 400 feet AGL), use the AR Drone 2.0 or any other drone for commercial purposes?
The answer is simple. The FAA rules state that you can use a drone all day long as a hobbyist (following the AC 91-57 rules), but once you start using it for commercial purposes, you are violating the law. Some drone users have said that to skirt the FAA rules, they don’t charge for drone flight time, but just the image processing (data) after the flight. I don’t think this concept has been tested in court yet, but the FAA says this activity is illegal.
“They would be violating FAA rules,” says FAA Spokesperson Alison Duquette. “Please read this policy link. The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken understanding that they are legally operating under the authority of AC 91-57. AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.”
To understand how serious the FAA is about enforcing the no-business-use of hobby rules, I asked the FAA for a list of enforcement citations, cease and desist orders, etc. I was told I had to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, which I did, but I’m warned by colleagues not to expect a speedy response.
Check out the following short (three-minute) video news report on a company in Minnesota that was “grounded” by the FAA for flying a drone for commercial use.
The good news is that in January 2012, the U.S. Congress ordered and funded the FAA to figure out how to integrate commercial drone use into the U.S. airspace by the end of 2015. In September 2013, the FAA released a document entitled “UAS Comprehensive Plan” and a document entitled “Integration of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) Roadmap“. If you’re really interested in learning more about drone usage in the U.S. and understand the FAA’s perspective, it’s worth a few minutes to scan these documents.
It’s going to be fascinating to see what rules the FAA establishes for commercial drone usage. Don’t be surprised if the PIC (Pilot in Command) must be a licensed pilot, and expect tough restrictions on altitude constraints, flight time, visibility, and control tower communications. I have my private pilot license (although I haven’t flown as PIC in years), and I recall that FAA rules state that you can fly as low as 500 feet AGL over rural areas and 1,000 feet AGL over populated areas. That doesn’t give commercial drone operators a lot of room to work with if they want to map a wide area.
