Why have we developed our own guidelines after years of using the Bladena Standards?<\/b><\/p>\n
Because we listen to our Customers!<\/span><\/p>\n While the 5 severity categories ( see image)\u00a0 were well-received, many users needed more granularity in how certain damage types and depths were classified. So, we\u2019ve refined our standard to meet that need \u2014 without losing continuity.<\/span><\/p>\n All new classifications have been mapped to the existing system, ensuring alignment between past and future inspections.<\/span><\/p>\n Key improvements include:<\/b><\/p>\n \ud83c\udff4Simplified names:<\/b> Type names are generally more concise and consistent (e.g. \u201c45 Cracks on Surface (Cutting from Factory)\u201d\u2192 \u201cCrack – 45\u00b0\u201d)<\/span><\/p>\n \ud83c\udf0d <\/span>Location removed from types: <\/b>Terms like \u201cTE-Trailing Edge\u201d have been removed from damage type name. (e.g. \u201cOpen Bond Line in TE\u201d becomes \u201cOpen bond line\u201d) So from now on the type is attributable to any location.<\/span><\/p>\n (e.g. Other Cracks on Surface-> becomes two : Crack – Longitudinal &\u00a0 Crack- Transvers;\u00a0 and Depth passes from 6 options to a few more\u00a0 options))<\/span><\/p>\n Our goal is to improve clarity, accuracy, and usability across all users, inspections and reports. This is an important step towards making the system able to support\u00a0 various classification standards in the future.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Why have we developed our own guidelines after years of using the Bladena Standards?<\/p>\n Because we listen to our Customers!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":86765,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"content-type":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[109,235,277,190,217,101,236,113,241,172,240,173,123,91,170,34,31,20,22,33,35,115,29,37,30],"class_list":["post-86764","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-bladeinspections","tag-dhalion","tag-dhalionguidelines","tag-dji","tag-djidrones","tag-drone","tag-efficiencyunlocked","tag-energy","tag-industryinsights","tag-offshorewindenergy","tag-operationalefficiency","tag-operations","tag-perceptualrobotics","tag-robotics","tag-uav","tag-ai","tag-artificialintelligence","tag-bladerepair","tag-blades","tag-droneinspection","tag-innovation","tag-offshorewind","tag-renewableenergy","tag-sustainability","tag-windenergy"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
\n<\/span>#\ufe0f\u20e3<\/span>More specific damage types and depths:<\/b> The number of types and depths has increased slightly. This improves tagging accuracy and downstream analysis.<\/span><\/p>\n