One of the most useful Aerotas principles is that accuracy comes from the whole workflow, not from a single hardware claim. The drone, the GNSS data, the overlap, the ground control, the processing, and the QA all have to line up. The weakest link usually sets the real result.
For many practical survey drone jobs, teams target around a tenth of a foot. That is a useful benchmark, but only when the project actually needs it and the field plan is built to support it.
Questions to answer upfront
- What horizontal and vertical accuracy does the deliverable actually need?
- Is the site open enough for photogrammetry, or is lidar more appropriate?
- How strong is the onboard positioning on the aircraft you are using?
- How much ground control or check data will be collected?
- How much field time can you afford without sacrificing the result?
Planning mistake to avoid: deciding the site must be flown at maximum speed first and only later asking whether the accuracy target still makes sense.
Why old and new aircraft behave differently
Modern RTK and PPK-capable systems make good accuracy much easier than older aircraft. That does not mean ground data stops mattering. It means the control strategy can be more efficient. Older aircraft without strong onboard positioning usually require more conservative procedures and tighter planning to get to the same result.
What this means in the field
If the project truly needs high-confidence survey-grade output, plan the flight overlap, altitude, control distribution, and checkpoint strategy around that need. If the project only needs one-foot contours or a planning-grade site model, be honest about that too. There is no prize for overflying a site just to produce unused precision.