wrote:

It is a challenge to train contractors and it's labor intensive to
investigate each problem. We think a better way of performing this
task is to have the contractor provide a digital still image of each
item in his report along with the associated geographic coordinate
(accuracy is not an issue since anything within 500' is acceptable).

I'm not a professional photographer (but I pretend to be an amateur!) so
take this with the relevant spice...

I'd recommend finding a few "threat" scenarios and photographing them from
the air using different techniques (series of stills, video, camera angles,
flight paths/altitudes (finding the optimum oblique angle), perhaps
stereoscopic photography). That would likely give you a more reasonable
expectation of the types of scenarios you would need to investigate from the
ground.

I'm concerned that a single digital still may not be the evidence you need
in many cases (although a series would be more helpful). The pilot/spotter
on the scene is able to get at least a reasonable estimate of the distance
between the threat and the line due to stereoscopic vision. Without that
depth perception (lost by a still photo), it can be difficult to gauge the
distance between the objects. A video camera can help, but it's still not a
replacement for depth perception. This isn't to "poo poo" the idea of using
digital photography to improve your efficiency, but I wouldn't want
expectations to get too far ahead of reasonable results.

Of course, if you have a spotter trained in the "art" of discerning threats,
he may be able to provide a digital still to back up his claim without much
training (since he already knows what's really a threat). Perhaps somebody
with more powerline observation experience can step in here...

Good luck!

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________