Why all the 206's with camera holes all of a sudden?

W

Wilywapiti

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
3
Display Name
Display name:
WilyWapiti
Seems as if there are a ton of Cessna 206's with camera holes on the market.

Geo-surveying gone south, or the DEA/INS selling out?

ww
 
In Baltimore they have real time monitoring of the street using 206s. They don't use camera ports, though. They record through the barn doors. People have complained about the noise. They fly 10k to 11k. Baltimoreans are noted for their peacefulness, honesty and exceptional hearing.
 
Clip4 said:
Technology made their missions obsolete.
Click to expand...
wsuffa said:
Drones
Click to expand...
As someone in the mapping industry... No. Not at all.

Generally speaking it's the smaller players with lesser technology with piston singles. And a few of those firms have either been gobbled up or shut down. If you can afford sensors well into the 7 figures, you can do better than a clapped out 206 to fly it, and in many cases the insurance on said sensors will require either twin piston or a turbine.
 
wsuffa said:
Drones
Click to expand...

That's what everyone thought was going to happen around here with ag surveying. A friend of mine in the ag business even "droned" up trying to corner the market. They soon found it was faster and easier to fly fields with real aircraft than with drones. A drone can do one field at a time, with drive time between fields. A single airplane can survey the entire county in a day and be done. Now his drones are just for shooting cool videos of tractors in the field.
 
midwestpa24 said:
That's what everyone thought was going to happen around here with ag surveying. A friend of mine in the ag business even "droned" up trying to corner the market. They soon found it was faster and easier to fly fields with real aircraft than with drones. A drone can do one field at a time, with drive time between fields. A single airplane can survey the entire county in a day and be done. Now his drones are just for shooting cool videos of tractors in the field.
Click to expand...
Classic example of a solution looking for a problem.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Classic example of a solution looking for a problem.
Click to expand...

I really wonder if Amazon will figure out the same thing about drone delivery. A single person in a truck can deliver hundreds of packages a day. A drone will be limited to one at a time with a lot of back and forth. It will require a lot of drones to replace that one driver and van. Once you remove the "cool" factor, the efficiency factor doesn't look so bright.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I really wonder if Amazon will figure out the same thing about drone delivery. A single person in a truck can deliver hundreds of packages a day. A drone will be limited to one at a time with a lot of back and forth. It will require a lot of drones to replace that one driver and van. Once you remove the "cool" factor, the efficiency factor doesn't look so bright.
Click to expand...
Ya know that actually makes me feel better. I was not looking forward to buzzing drones. Thanks
 
Managing in the "big boy airplane" flight department (for aerial mapping) I was a bit nervous when the company bought their first little toys (drones) years ago and put them in a different department.

Over all these years there have been a total of zero jobs for our twins that were given to the drones instead, for reasons listed above. The economies of scale just aren't there. The payloads those drones can take aren't compatible with the sensors that are used for mapping hundreds of square miles. And technology can't really help all of that that, because much of it has to do with optics. Lenses are lenses.
 
Todd82 said:
Managing in the "big boy airplane" flight department (for aerial mapping) I was a bit nervous when the company bought their first little toys (drones) years ago and put them in a different department.

Over all these years there have been a total of zero jobs for our twins that were given to the drones instead, for reasons listed above. The economies of scale just aren't there. The payloads those drones can take aren't compatible with the sensors that are used for mapping hundreds of square miles. And technology can't really help all of that that, because much of it has to do with optics. Lenses are lenses.
Click to expand...
So does this mean I can put my aluminum foil hat back on the shelf?
 
midwestpa24 said:
I really wonder if Amazon will figure out the same thing about drone delivery. A single person in a truck can deliver hundreds of packages a day. A drone will be limited to one at a time with a lot of back and forth. It will require a lot of drones to replace that one driver and van. Once you remove the "cool" factor, the efficiency factor doesn't look so bright.
Click to expand...
The cost of human labor continues to rise, while the cost of technology continues to fall.
 
Todd82 said:
Managing in the "big boy airplane" flight department (for aerial mapping) I was a bit nervous when the company bought their first little toys (drones) years ago and put them in a different department.

Over all these years there have been a total of zero jobs for our twins that were given to the drones instead, for reasons listed above. The economies of scale just aren't there. The payloads those drones can take aren't compatible with the sensors that are used for mapping hundreds of square miles. And technology can't really help all of that that, because much of it has to do with optics. Lenses are lenses.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering how payload ability is going to work for the delivery business as well. What is the max weight of package the drone is really able to carry and at what range? What if you are talking about many of our online shopping addicted spouses that receive multiple packages each delivery? The drones will never completely replace the ground delivery game. If they can't, will their share of the market be large enough to be worthwhile. That's what I've seen in the aerial survey, ag survey, side of the business. Its not that it can't be done, but it just isn't worth the time and investment.
 
I would love to have one of those 206s with camera ports!

My friend flies photo missions for a large construction company. I asked him why drones haven't taken over this job. He said it's simple, in the plane they can hit Austin, San Antonio, and Houston in one day. You would have to have someone in each location with a drone or have someone drive out there.
 
I can't speak to the feasibility of a drone delivery model, but I suspect Amazon's current prime delivery model is not self sustaining long-term, even using less than minimum wage contract labor.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Not really. The high end technology is VERY expensive, and still a human has to be somewhere to monitor it.
Click to expand...

Drone technology doesn't eliminate human costs, just shuffles it around and may be able to reduce it slightly. I'd assume there is still quite a bit of monitoring involved, as well as maintenance. Wouldn't surprise me if it actually increased manpower costs.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I'm wondering how payload ability is going to work for the delivery business as well. What is the max weight of package the drone is really able to carry and at what range? What if you are talking about many of our online shopping addicted spouses that receive multiple packages each delivery? The drones will never completely replace the ground delivery game. If they can't, will their share of the market be large enough to be worthwhile. That's what I've seen in the aerial survey, ag survey, side of the business. Its not that it can't be done, but it just isn't worth the time and investment.
Click to expand...

The plan, as I understood it from Amazon, was to use the trucks as a base of operations for the drones to take off and return to unless the destination was especially close to an Amazon distribution center. The delivery driver can send the drone out to deliver packages nearby while they simultaneously deliver by hand. The drone need only fly back and forth to the delivery truck so its flights can be kept short and likely some sort of recharging capability.
 
Todd82 said:
Managing in the "big boy airplane" flight department (for aerial mapping) I was a bit nervous when the company bought their first little toys (drones) years ago and put them in a different department.

Over all these years there have been a total of zero jobs for our twins that were given to the drones instead, for reasons listed above. The economies of scale just aren't there. The payloads those drones can take aren't compatible with the sensors that are used for mapping hundreds of square miles. And technology can't really help all of that that, because much of it has to do with optics. Lenses are lenses.
Click to expand...
I would think commercial satellites might be bigger competition. Worldview can sell you 30cm resolution Visible/Near-IR imagery for any spot on the globe. Of course you have to contend with cloud cover.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Not really. The high end technology is VERY expensive, and still a human has to be somewhere to monitor it.
Click to expand...
Yep, but that monitoring doesn't have to be 1:1. And costs will come down. No one's arguing this is the way to go now. But that's why is in development.

UPS's model is a bunch of drones on a truck. Deliver all the packages in a neighborhood at once; drive to the next neighborhood.
 
AlleyCat67 said:
I would think commercial satellites might be bigger competition. Worldview can sell you 30cm resolution Visible/Near-IR imagery for any spot on the globe. Of course you have to contend with cloud cover.
Click to expand...

The problem I've seen with satellite versus aerial imagery is atmospheric distortion. Maybe with enough post processing they can try to correct for it one day.

Also what's the cost of acquisition and operation of a satellite versus a clapped out Cessna that a lot of aerial operators are using?
 
midwestpa24 said:
The problem I've seen with satellite versus aerial imagery is atmospheric distortion. Maybe with enough post processing they can try to correct for it one day.

Also what's the cost of acquisition and operation of a satellite versus a clapped out Cessna that a lot of aerial operators are using?
Click to expand...

For the operator a satellite is orders of magnitude more expensive. But for the customer, the cost of the data is probably lower. So a big aerospace company with lots of capital could (in theory) put lots of mom'n'pop airborne imaging companies out of business. But as you say, satellite imagers don't necessarily fit every bill.
 
Wow. I remember when one of the very first one of those high tech (at the time) airplanes showed up in the SF Bay area. It had an inertially stabilized camera that cost as much as the airplane.

I wanted to apply for that pilot job, but the insurance requirements were way over my head at the time.
 
Lots of good points here.

Drone technology doesn't replace humans: fact. Operator + observer for the drone, pilot + sensor operator for the plane.

Camera cost as much as the airplane: false, but in the opposite way. I can buy a whole fleet of used C206's for the price of one high end camera or lidar. High end cameras or lidars can run over a million easily.

Satellites replacing us: for imagery, someday. 30cm pixel size is good maybe for some jobs, but many jobs want it down in the 5-15cm range, for now that's still planes. Lidar is the big deal now, and satellites aren't shooting lasers accurate to a few centimeters at us.
 
Todd82 said:
Lots of good points here.

Drone technology doesn't replace humans: fact. Operator + observer for the drone, pilot + sensor operator for the plane.

Camera cost as much as the airplane: false, but in the opposite way. I can buy a whole fleet of used C206's for the price of one high end camera or lidar. High end cameras or lidars can run over a million easily.

Satellites replacing us: for imagery, someday. 30cm pixel size is good maybe for some jobs, but many jobs want it down in the 5-15cm range, for now that's still planes. Lidar is the big deal now, and satellites aren't shooting lasers accurate to a few centimeters at us.
Click to expand...
I was in the mapping business back in the 1980-90s. Even at that time, cameras were $100-200K and in the 100 pound range. Since we were doing mostly photogrammetry, the vertical accuracy was based on the optical angle between adjacent photographs, which depended on the altitude. Satellite photos were not going to work and drones don't seem like they can carry the weight. I'm guessing topo and volumes are mostly done with lidar now. I didn't keep up with the business after I left in 1999. Lidar was in its infancy then.
 
LesGawlik said:
In Baltimore they have real time monitoring of the street using 206s. They don't use camera ports, though. They record through the barn doors. People have complained about the noise. They fly 10k to 11k. Baltimoreans are noted for their peacefulness, honesty and exceptional hearing.
Click to expand...
Did someone say Baltimorans?
 
When I worked for Martin Marietta Denver Aerospace (that was a long time ago) we referred to the people at HQ (Baltimore) as Baltimorons. I think you get the idea. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top