Frequently asked questions.

LiDAR is often useful when the main requirement is detailed geometry across terrain, corridors or complex structures. It measures surfaces with laser pulses, while photogrammetry reconstructs them from overlapping photographs.

The choice depends on the site and the output you need. Vegetation, surface texture, access and the level of detail required all influence the approach. Where useful, LiDAR and photography can complement each other rather than compete.

Ground mapping depends on enough laser pulses reaching the ground through gaps in the vegetation. Canopy density, low undergrowth, season, terrain and capture settings all affect the available ground observations.

LiDAR can provide ground information where photographs mainly show the canopy, but it does not guarantee complete coverage beneath dense vegetation. Identifying those areas before capture helps determine whether different timing or additional field measurements are needed.

A measurable model is useful when the question involves dimensions, elevations, volumes or the relationship between features. For example, a design team may need to understand how a proposed addition relates to an existing structure, rather than simply see what the structure looks like.

Photographs remain valuable for visible condition records. A model adds spatial information, provided the capture, control and accuracy checks are appropriate for the measurements you intend to make.

A point cloud is a collection of points with 3D positions, useful for examining captured geometry and supporting engineering workflows. A surface model connects or organizes that geometry into a representation suited to tasks such as terrain analysis and volume calculations.

A Gaussian splat creates a visually rich 3D scene that is useful for exploring and communicating captured conditions. Measurement capability depends on the processing platform, positioning and validation. The deliverable should be chosen around its intended use, rather than appearance alone.

Start with the information the repair team needs: accessible above-water geometry, surrounding terrain, approach areas, visible features and the relationship between the structure and nearby assets. The required coverage and detail will differ for deck work, access planning and a wider rehabilitation project.

Agreeing on the scope with the engineer helps focus the survey on useful information. Geometry and imagery support the assessment; material testing, hidden conditions and specialist inspection may require separate work.

Yes, where the drawings and survey can be brought into a common coordinate and elevation reference. Comparing them can highlight differences in location, dimensions or visible features and help identify where further review is needed.

The age, scale and accuracy of the drawings matter. A difference may reflect a construction change, an incomplete record or a mismatch between reference systems. Those possibilities should be checked before treating it as a physical change to the asset.

Useful information can include the position and arrangement of visible antennas and equipment, tower geometry, nearby obstructions, compound layout and available access. Capturing these conditions provides a shared reference for the carrier, designer and field team.

The scope should follow the proposed upgrade. Structural capacity, connection details and equipment specifications may require existing records or additional inspection; a visual or geometric survey alone does not establish whether the tower can support a new load.

Small connection details, concealed components, areas blocked by equipment and surfaces that cannot be viewed clearly may need closer access. Bolt condition, internal corrosion, material properties and electrical performance can also require methods beyond remote photography or scanning.

Defining the required details before capture helps identify what can be documented remotely and what may need a qualified inspector, a climb or another form of access.

Repeat surveys establish how much material is present at different points in time. Combined with delivery records, production schedules and expected consumption, those measurements help teams update estimates of available inventory and plan when additional material may be needed.

Consistent pile identification, boundaries and base-surface assumptions make the comparisons more useful. If purchasing decisions depend on tonnes rather than volume, an appropriate bulk density and its assumptions also need to be established.

A survey measures the volume present on the survey date, while inventory records may track deliveries and withdrawals by weight. Differences can arise from timing, unrecorded material movements, density assumptions or the ground surface used as the base of the calculation.

Reconciliation starts with matching the survey date, material categories and units. It also helps to document the pile boundaries and base surface so that repeat calculations can be compared on the same basis.

Design work needs data that meets defined requirements for accuracy, coverage, detail and positioning. A model that looks convincing on screen may still be unsuitable for setting elevations, locating connections or measuring clearances.

Before capture, agree on the coordinate system, elevation reference, required tolerances, validation approach and file formats with the design team. This makes the survey specification follow the decisions the data must support.

Review what has changed since capture, what the earlier survey covered and whether its accuracy and reference system suit the new project. Construction, grading, equipment changes and missing areas can make parts of a survey less useful even when the data is relatively recent.

The answer may be a targeted update rather than a complete resurvey. Reviewing the earlier files alongside the current project requirements helps identify which information can be retained and which needs verification.

Capture is most useful before clearing, grading, demolition or other activity changes the conditions you want to document. Scheduling it early enough for review also gives the project team time to identify gaps before those conditions are disturbed.

The baseline can include relevant terrain, structures, access areas and adjacent features. Its value depends on agreeing beforehand what needs to be recorded and how that record will be used during the work.

Repeat capture creates dated records that can be compared to understand changes in terrain, visible structures, material storage and site layout. It can support progress discussions, coordination and review of work completed between survey dates.

Using consistent coverage and reference systems makes those comparisons more reliable. Capture dates should follow meaningful project milestones, and visible survey records should be considered alongside the site records needed to assess completion or compliance.

Focus on the information maintenance teams will need later: asset locations, visible geometry, access constraints, surrounding conditions and the features relevant to planned work. Consistent identifiers and dated images help connect the survey to existing asset records.

Above-water reality capture documents what can be observed. Buried utilities, internal condition and operating performance may need separate investigation. Identifying those needs early helps avoid gaps in the maintenance record.

A useful asset record connects spatial data with clear identifiers, capture dates, coordinate information and an explanation of what was measured. Organizing files around the owner’s asset naming and storage system makes them easier to retrieve and update.

The goal is a record that future teams can understand and compare. Agreeing on formats, coverage and handover requirements before capture helps the information remain useful beyond the immediate project.

Define the purpose of the survey, the required coverage, coordinate and elevation references, accuracy requirements and deliverables. The airport operator and project team should also identify access arrangements, operating constraints and how the work will be coordinated with airport activity.

If the information will support an aviation-specific assessment, its technical requirements and review process should be established before capture. The survey scope should follow that intended use, with the necessary specialists involved.

Share the site location, the area or asset involved and the question you need the survey to answer. Include the intended use, timing, access constraints and any existing drawings or survey files that may help define the work.

If your team already has requirements for accuracy, coordinates, elevations or file formats, include those too. A clear description of the decision the data must support is often more useful than requesting a particular capture technology at the outset.

Start with who will use the information, what they need to do with it and which software or reporting workflow they use. An engineer may need geometry in a defined reference system, while an operations team may need labelled images, a quantity report or an accessible visual record.

Agree on formats, units, coverage and documentation before capture. This helps avoid receiving a detailed dataset that still requires substantial conversion before it can support the work.