• mle@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    9 months ago

    I’m no expert on inspecting bridges, but I’d think that you still would need a professional inspector to do the inspecting, only that they would save the time of actually travelling out to the bridge themselves and instead could do it in their office, no?

    And then there are probably things which still need to be done on site, such as non-visual inspections (ultrasound, X-Ray, Vibration testing, Tourque measuring on bolts, paint thickness,…? IDK)

    • linearchaos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      9 months ago

      Not just travel time, but also climbing around on the bridge itself.

      at the very least they would identify all the parts that need to be looked at in person.

      The amount of time it takes a body to hand inspect every inch should be the lions share of the time. if it’s not, you need a new bridge :)

    • moistclump@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      Visual inspection is an important starting point to determine if you need more extensive testing. You get a sense of the area, bridge type, and age of the bridge. This would be great for younger bridges that are low risk but should have a visual once over every couple years or so.

    • dvtt@lemmings.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      30% cost reduction vs current drone systems which can’t tolerate wind. I’m guessing more air+recharge time, damaged drones, skilled pilots, etc. all add up