Aerial Photography and other

[IceNine]

So there has been mention in 3 or more threads recently of aerial photography and it's growing importance to our customers.  There is also mention of producing a professional product. 

I am interested in this particular field but I think there is some work to be done on the idea of the specialty and I think that there is going to be more to this that just people knowing how to take quality photos from the A/C.

It would stand to reason that this would be at least a 3-4 stage process.

We get marching orders of what the customer needs.
We run the sortie and get the photos.

Then I would think we need people on the ground that are specifically trained or at least versed in processing this information.  Including tagging the photos, clearing them up with some basic photo editing, and producing other products. 

I know a lot of folks around me are using robogeo coupled with google earth to lay out total reference.  But I would think that we need to be able to produce photo boards that can be handed to the customer with appropriate reference.

Then we present everything in a coherent package to the customer.

I can only assume that the presentation of the information is just as important as the raw data in most situations.  Especially in the training environment where we are trying to build a relationship with new customers.

[Eclipse]

I can only assume that the presentation of the information is just as important as the raw data in most situations.  Especially in the training environment where we are trying to build a relationship with new customers.

Depending on the immediacy of the need.

The last two missions I did for real world customers (tornado with a NOAA guy, floods with an EMA guy), the customer wanted them ASAP, and we burned a CD in the aircraft which was handed to him before we landed.

Others might want more thoughtful presentation, etc.

One thing I have found is that we tend to overthink what we're doing.  The pics, of course, need to be high quality, but how much included data we need is subjective.

Photos of a fixed target (i.e bridge) with a chemical spill, don't really need a lot of detail on location - the customer knows where the bridge is, and if not provided with a photo, can generally figure out direction, etc.

A "run" however, is different, in that it may be a series of photos or video showing a wide area with less detail and few visual markers (tornadoes, for example, tend to erase those). Running GPS hits and notes on the direction of the photos will be much more critical, and those runs usually need processing back at mission base with a quiet room.

Another thing that escapes some PRO's is that the GPS is taking a hit on the plane, not the photo, and with a good camera you might be 1/2 a mile away or more from the subject.  Depending on the equipment you are using, your track may be North, but your are shooting West, etc., potentially important details, or completely extraneous information, depending on the customer.

I am still shooting with old-school gear - a Nikon 5700 and a Garmin III+.

The Garmin is attached to my knee board and has a remote antenna sucked to the back window.  It gives me time, direction, speed, altitude, heading, location, etc. (most of which can be pulled from the device with the track data).

With those last two missions I mentioned, the customer just wanted to fly around and capture big broken stuff, so when we got to a target, I would hit the "man overboard" on the GPS, which drops a waypoint on the spot, then we would fly in a tight circle over the target and I would shoot until I thought we had a good set.  We did not fly a standard "photo box" as we might without the customer in the airplane, since he would know where they were taken and what he was seeing later (and was local to the area).

In comment to the example above - photos of the schools didn't need much location info, but photos of newly burned buildings that the FD couldn't get to, did.

The GPS then provides a track of our flight with waypoints where we took photos - simple to match to time form the pics, assuming your camera is coordinated with the GPS.

Again, Ye Old School, but it works.

[RiverAux]

Lately our state agency has just wanted random photos of storm damage.  We try to exceed those rather low expectations as much as possible. 

The thing is that even with a major tornado, by the time we get up in the air and take photographs, the emergency mgt folks are already on the ground so all we're doing is documenting damage rather than trying to identify and photograph a location they didn't know about.  Heck, its usually the next day since you can't fly right after the tornado hits anyway. 

More or less the same thing with floods -- they've got GIS based maps that they can match with stream gauge readings to predict pretty accuraterly which areas are underwater, so photographs are again just something for them to use in post-incident presentations and reports. 

I'm not sure what is holding up the Aerial Photgrapher qualification -- they've had it noted on the 101 card for a LONG time, but haven't released a SQTR.  Personally I don't see a need for a separate qualification and think the individual tasks should be rolled in with what we expect of all Scanners. 

[lordmonar]

You are right that we need to provide the customer with a quality package......but a lot of what you are talking about is a Planning Section function and not an MS/MO function.  Yes we need to be trained on what the PSC guys are doing so we capture the needed data but all the google earth stuff (which we do here in Nevada) is a function of the Planning Section.

The core problem as I see it....is that PSC as a whole is grossly overlooked by our ES staff/planners.

It seems that most people just rush through PSC so they can get to OSC/IC.   It seems like it is pulling teeth to get anyone to sit in the PSC office during a SAREX....and it should be one of the most staffed sections at the base.

I admit that I am part of the problem (I topped off at GBD/AOBD...and both of those have dropped off as I don't have IS 300 yet)....but I work closely with the PSC guys and assit them as much as I can.

[Eclipse]

As I understand it NESA will be running a pilot Aerial Photography course this year.  Perhaps that is the start.

[IceNine]

You are right that we need to provide the customer with a quality package......but a lot of what you are talking about is a Planning Section function and not an MS/MO function. 

I wholly agree that the person processing this information should not be the guy that took the pics. 

I am of the impression that while planning is grossly under rated.  We also don't focus enough on people to manage technology.  I think we need a subset of people that are better trained in MIS.  Things like product presentation, networking (so we can all print from that one pc), outside phonelines (skype in works well) etc.    Currently we have people at large missions that focus on facilities and food, we usually don't have anyone who's entire job is to ensure that we are able to connect with outside agencies, and that we are impressing our customers.

My only solution to this is to create a specialty that focuses on these issues.

[RiverAux]

Our wing has started to use PSC as it is intended in the last year or two, but had pretty much ignored prior to that.

I wholly agree that the person processing this information should not be the guy that took the pics. 

Agree, but with the qualification that the scanner and observer need to sit down with whoever is processing the photos to go over their datasheet and make sure that it matches what is on the camera and resolve any issues about which photos go with which targets that may arise.  Then those guys need to get back in the air again. 

[Short Field]

I wholly agree that the person processing this information should not be the guy that took the pics. 

I agree that the final product has to go through someone else but strongly disagree that the guy that took the pics gets a "get out of work" card.   

The aircrew took the photos and needs to make sure they are in a usable format, the bad shots and dups are eliminated, and the photo log actually matches the photos.  They also need to annotate the photos as required by the customer.  I see too many debriefings that totally bog down because the aircrew can't figure out who took what photo, when it was taken, and where it was taken.  The customer asks for 4 photos each of 4 targets and the crew tosses you a memory chip with 124 photos on it and a photo log that is mainly blank and only contains 12 entries.  I debriefed a lot of CD photo missions this last year that  took over two hours to process the photos.  Why?  Because the crews were not keeping track of what they took and writing it down.   It was amazing that when I flew a CD mission, we could get processed in about 20 minutes after landing.  That included emailing the final package to the customer as well as adding annotated Google Earth JPGs that identified the location of each photo (as a four sided box) on the ground. But then the crews I flew with (as MS, MO, and MP) worked hard to keep things organized.

Making the crew do the preprocessing before they debrief puts the people that know the most about the photos and the mission to work recording that information in a usable format.  One of our ICs keeps telling the crews to take as many photos as they can - the more the better.  Then he wonders why the AOBD is so bogged down in debriefing that he can't launch the next set of sorties.   

I really believe in using Google Earth (GE) to brief photo missions and absolutely for debriefing photo missions.   The crew can plan the flight better and has a better grasp of what the target area looks like.  It is invaluable for debriefing.  I like to skew the view in GE to match what the photographer is seeing.  Then I match up the photos (after the initial scrub to get rid of the dups, etc) with the GE image and draw a box on GE to show the four corners of each photo.  I then label the boxs (which look more like trapezoids) and end up with a single overlay showing all the mission photos.  I then take a couple of screen shots of GE and send them along with the mission photos so the customer can actually see the area the photos cover.  It also makes a great reference for briefing follow-on missions. 

This function needs to be done by the AOBD debriefer after the crew has preprocessed the mission.  The PSC then reviews the product before releasing it to the customer.  The crew is not released to go home or fly another mission until the PSC releases the product to the customer. 

Yes, this does take a lot more training.  But if the customer gets a quality product, they will ask for more.  Just dumping a zillion photos on them that they can't use or correlate to THEIR mission doesn't improve our value to them.

[wuzafuzz]

Personally I prefer a separate aerial photography rating instead of lumping the task onto the Scanner rating.  While I agree Mission Scanners should know how to take some photos, a pure photo mission can go to an aerial photographer.  Why?  Many Scanners might not be into photography.  Many photogs might not be excited about the other scanner functions.  Why not split it out?  Interested parties can earn ratings in both and training is improved.

A new rating would allow photographers to contribute without getting dragged into missions they prefer to avoid.  For instance my eyesight is such I don't feel comfortable searching for itty bitty items on the ground when a person's well-being is at stake.  Take a picture of a bridge, events center, or post-storm damage?  No problem. 

When I was a crime scene guy we had many occasions where we were expected to head up in our helicopters or airplanes to shoot photos.  Not just for crime scenes, but intel gathering for a variety of purposes.  Customers included many local and state agencies, as well as a variety of federal agencies.  We were never asked to loan a camera to anyone, including our full time paid Observers.  Observers didn't want to be photographers and photographers didn't consider themselves "aircrew."  We were passengers with a camera and expertise.  They always wanted a photographer.

We didn't use a bunch of fancy stuff.  A film camera with a gyro stabilizer and a notepad was as high tech as we got.  (We were thrilled when we got our first Nikon D1.)  Good note taking and sketches made debrief easy.  Customers were happy with labeled prints.  We can throw lots of technology at the problem but if photography skills are lacking the mission isn't accomplished.

[wuzafuzz]

BTW, I could care less about new Scanner or Aerial Photographer bling.  Getting the job done is where it's at!

[RiverAux]

I would be very surprised if the Aerial Photographer rating doesn't actually include many of the tasks currently found in the Scanner training.  I had assumed that it was going to be an add-on rating.

But, when it comes right down to it, I don't care if there is an Aerial Photographer rating or not, if someone is needed to go take pictures and has a Scanner qualification, they're going to go do it whether they have the A.P. rating or not.  Thats why I believe a new rating isn't worth it.  Its not like this is something like ARCHER that actually does require a bunch of additional training to do. 

[wuzafuzz]

If we want it done well, a new rating might be just the ticket.  This assumes it is a separate, and not an add-on rating.

I've seen the photos some people provide and they don't cut it.  If no new rating, how to we convince Scanners who could care less about photos to really step up to the plate? How about the folks who became Scanners only to check off the pre-reqs for Observer or MP?

[RiverAux]

I've seen the photos some people provide and they don't cut it.  If no new rating, how to we convince Scanners who could care less about photos to really step up to the plate? How about the folks who became Scanners only to check off the pre-reqs for Observer or MP?

By including the photo-related tasks we care about in the Scanner rating. 

[Short Field]

And flagging mission with poor photos as "unsucessful".

[genejackson]

There is a specific metatag that goes on each and every photo we take for our customers.   Whether CD, HLS, DR, etc., you are supposed to put the following on your photographs:

1.  Date:  Military format
       - Example:  22MAR07
2.  TOT:  Time Over Target (zulu)
       - Example:  1030Z
3.  Location:  City and State/GPS Coordinates/ North arrow annotated
       - Example:  Biloxi, MS/ Latitude: N000000.00  W0000000.00 4.
Object:  Name of object imaged (from collection deck when available)
       - Example:  Chalmette Refinery

That is a copy/paste straight from the NOC to me on a past mission.  You also are supposed to index on the photograph a reference to North.  There are several programs available both via shareware and from CAP to allow you to put this data directly on the photographs.

EUGENE F. JACKSON, Lt Col
VAWG / CD & HLS Officer
Group I CC

[Pumbaa]

I geotag every image automatically.  This way when I run my images through some software the tags are printed on the image.

I run GPS while flying.

[Hawk200]

Seems to be a feeling that Photography should be rolled into scanner training. It has been pointed out that not all scanners are interested, or even effective with a camera. Scanners are a basic set of eyeballs with aircrew training, no reason to expand that extensively.

As far as I know, the military doesn't have a specific Aerial Photography MOS, AFSC, or Rate for Aerial Photography. Nothing that specifically says, that in this specialty, flight is required. There are, however, AP's on regular flight status that take photos from aircraft.

Why not have a photographer specialty track? We know CAP had one in the past, there's an insignia for it. For Aerial work, provide additional training for the flight side of the house, make it an ES qual with the basic requirement of that specialty track. The training would cover what is needed for Aerial Photography, and include the aircrew coordination as well. There may be missions were an AP would fly, but a scanner wouldn't be needed.

If we continue to see an upswing in primarily photography flights, it might not hurt to start equipping some of our aircraft for such missions. Not sure what might be uniquely intended for photography flights, but I imagine that not any Joe Blow could just take his bird for a spin, and get some pictures while he's up.

Just some ideas.