b'CommitteesASEG newsASEG Technical Standards Committee: Meeting summaryASEG Technical Standards Committeecommon but they are not a staple andwith problems such as the inability to held an online meeting a month afterquestions remain about discriminatingcleanly merge surveys only one day the AEGC 2023. Thirteen membersground from vegetation when surveysapart over the same area. Consultants participated. Apologies to those unablecan change height abruptly by 50 m. also have trouble converting data into to attend due to other commitments,an acceptable format. It is hoped that and who missed the opportunity toA push for better DEM models generatedcompanies continue to work on ironing make a contribution on their topics ofby LiDAR began with airborne gravityout the problems and look to Geoscience interest. The meeting minutes have beenusers but appears to be catchingAustralias published airborne survey distributed and only the topics whichon. LiDAR data is being lodged withstandards as a general guideelicited discussion or are consideredstate surveys by industry, and various timely are summarised here. government initiatives have covered 70%To promote improvements the of Tasmania with 1 m resolution.Committee will petition the Federal Executive to join the SEGs Near-Surface Magnetic gradiometry All this led to a discussion of preferredGeophysics Inter-Society Committee, gravity height datums. Ellipsoidal heightswhich authors the UAV Guidelines The conversation has quickly shiftedfrom GPS require no transformation andfor drone geophysics https://www.from if to when, as the GSNSW hastherefore there are fewer errors, but mostguidelinesfordronegeophysics.com/already taken the lead by commissioningproducts are AHD. DEM models provide magnetic gradiometery surveys for theirback calculation, but can you trust a projects. The technique was also includedvalue? Kim Frankcombe demonstratedFile and data naming conventionsin Geoscience Australias new guide tosome geoid transformation confusionFinally, we compared GAs new guide to airborne surveying standards. https:// where ellipsoidal gravity heights di\x1eer byairborne surveying standards and the ecat.ga.gov.au/geonetwork/srv/eng/ 15 m to their surrounds. Consequently,SEGs guide An introduction to Total catalog.search#/metadata/147457 it was agreed that the measured GPSMagnetic Field Magnetic Nomenclature While we have been pushing thisellipsoidal heights should be included infor tackling standard names for data technique for producing superior grids,metadata along with details of the geoidcollected and grid products. Most the NSW members of the Committeemodel used to derive the geoid height. surveyors have experience with GA explained that there is another bene\x1dt inand generally follow the naming that surveyors can \x1cy above 50 m, whichAirborne gravity conventions recommended by that is safer, whilst retaining data \x1ddelity. It isorganisation. Both are good references important to understand, however, thatGeoscience Australia is currently runningfor column names and GDF2/database in lieu of gradients, contractors may notsurveys to improve geoid de\x1dnition withaliases. The Committee will formally \x1cy tie lines, and that there are IP issueswhoever wins the tender. Hopefully therespond to the SEG authors with thanks over the gridding technique. So, it isvarious airborne gravity platforms canand express the ASEGs agreement on recommended clients seek grids madebe brought together to \x1dnd a commonmost points.using suitable software that accounts fordata set.these issues. Thank you for your interest. If you have any comments, please email the Committee at Drones technical-standards@aseg.org.au.Radar, elevation and ellipsoidsThe state of drone magnetic surveys,Tim Keeping Three topics that reduce to one. Laserusually using 1000 Hz magnetometers, isASEG Technical Standards Committee Chair altimeter surveys are increasinglystill considered substandard to airbornetechnical-standards@aseg.org.auJUNE 2023 PREVIEW 8'