When FPV Confined Space Inspections Are Not the Right Solution

FPV confined space inspections offer significant advantages in safety, access, and efficiency—but they are not a universal solution.

Understanding where FPV inspections are not appropriate is just as important as understanding where they work well. In some situations, relying solely on drone-based inspection can result in incomplete information or false confidence.

This article outlines the key scenarios where FPV confined space inspections may not be suitable, and why a different approach may be required.

1. When Physical Testing Is Required

FPV inspections are visual-only. They are excellent for identifying:

• Cracks

• Corrosion

• Blockages

• Debris build-up

• Obvious structural defects

However, they cannot replace inspections that require:

• Hammer testing

• Ultrasonic thickness measurements

• Material sampling

• Load testing

If an inspection specification requires physical interaction with the structure, drone inspection alone will not be sufficient.

In these cases, FPV inspections are best used as a preliminary assessment tool, helping to plan safe access for follow-up works.

2. Extremely Tight or Obstructed Geometries

While FPV drones are highly manoeuvrable, there are limits.

Some confined spaces contain:

• Complex internal frameworks

• Dense pipework

• Moving components

• Very narrow transitions

If the available space does not allow safe manoeuvring or recovery of the drone, an FPV inspection may introduce unnecessary risk.

A site-specific assessment is essential to determine whether drone access is feasible without compromising safety or equipment.

3. Environments with Heavy Dust, Vapour, or Contamination

FPV inspections rely on clear visual feedback. Certain environments significantly reduce effectiveness, including:

• Heavy dust or powder residues

• Steam or vapour

• Dense airborne contaminants

In these conditions:

• Visibility may be severely limited

• Camera lenses can become obscured

• Flight control may be compromised

Where visibility cannot be maintained, alternative inspection methods may be more appropriate.

4. Hazardous Atmospheres Beyond Visual Assessment

FPV inspections do not replace atmospheric testing or gas monitoring.

If a confined space presents:

• Explosive atmospheres

• Oxygen-deficient environments

• Toxic gases

a drone inspection cannot independently verify safety conditions. In some cases, human entry with specialist monitoring equipment may still be required to meet regulatory or procedural standards.

5. Situations Requiring Certified Measurements or Compliance Data

Certain inspections require:

• Certified measurements

• Dimensional tolerances

• Regulatory sign-off

FPV drones can provide valuable visual context, but they may not meet the formal requirements for compliance documentation without additional inspection methods.

In regulated environments, FPV inspections should be considered one component of a broader inspection strategy, not a standalone solution.

6. When FPV Is Used as a Shortcut Rather Than a Tool

Perhaps the most important limitation is not technical, but procedural.

FPV inspections should not be used:

• To avoid proper planning

• As a replacement for required access methods

• Without clear inspection objectives

When FPV is treated as a “quick look” without understanding its limitations, it can lead to incomplete assessments or misinformed decisions.

The Right Way to Use FPV Confined Space Inspections

FPV inspections are most effective when they are:

• Planned

• Risk-assessed

• Integrated with traditional inspection methods

Used correctly, they can:

• Reduce unnecessary confined space entry

• Improve inspection planning

• Identify areas requiring closer investigation

Used incorrectly, they risk becoming a substitute for inspections they were never designed to replace.

Conclusion

FPV confined space inspections are a powerful tool—but like any inspection method, they have clear limitations.

The key is understanding when FPV adds value and when another approach is required. In many cases, the strongest inspection strategy combines FPV access with targeted physical inspection where necessary.

Honest assessment and correct tool selection lead to safer inspections, better data, and more reliable outcomes.