I also have a background in Geophysics/land surveying/GIS, and I am in school to complete the ABET Degree I need to get "permission" to sit for and conquer the FS/PS exams and quantify my work history and experience to apply for licensure.
Very similar work histories save the UAS stuff. I don't fly for work, just play. Have traveled Internally for Multi-milliondollar contracted work for foreign governments, and was even offered an opportunity to buy out a licensed surveyors business, to work and gain my time under his license.
But with all that, I never considered working with the idea I could provide legally authoritative and relied upon survey promoted documents or data without having a license( save the scenario of owning and umbrella with above) and understand why and how that would be a liability that a lawyer from Dewey Cheatem and Howe would have a field day with in the courtroom if anything went unfavorably fora client.?ÿ If you can get an LS to sign off, good deal, just remember Surveying is more than just math, and UAS, and imagery. Legal principles that have been concatonated from several hundreds of years previous are used now in what seems to be a simple wave of a pen, but takes years to fully understand, comprehend, and utilize with competence, and in the best interest of the public well being.
(mic drop...)
The responsible experience under a licensed surveyor can't be gained anywhere else I am aware of....
A geophysicist is just as capable as a surveyor at the "here lies" part. When a land surveyor is absolutely needed is when the "here lies" becomes a legal boundary, either a surface fee boundary, a mineral rights boundary, an easment boundary, or a legal building restriction boundary.
Edit: Note to the OP, what I think should be true is not necessarily the same as what the State of Colorado says is true. The "here lies" part may require a licence also.?ÿ
So... I guess I'll be the contrarian here.
The licensee is responsible for what she/he stamps. If the licensee is comfortable with how you perform your work, and is willing to accept that responsibility, I see no ethical reason for this to be an issue.
The caveat being the rules and regulations in Colorado regarding companies offering the services that require a licensed person.
Agreed, and understood.
My rant was on the idea of circumventing the protections defined by the law, and that also means they have to be enacted upon by the DORA and the PLSC?ÿ and the Attorney General's office if the case was ever to make it to that point.
?ÿ
Today is a ranting to getit all out by the end of the year day apparently......?ÿ whew@!
I can't imagine anyone who truly understands what is needed to provide survey grade geophyiscal mapping, data from drones, and ground control describing them as simple survey related services. The complexity in ensuring a valid product derived from drone data is itself anything but simple. Because you think it is simple leads me to believe your product isn't as robust as it should be.
Nah... if you're an expert at something, it's simple.
And it's the client who determines whether it's robust enough or not.
Nah... if you're an expert at something, it's simple.
And it's the client who determines whether it's robust enough or not.
True enough, but people tend to greatly overestimate their capabilities right up until they start approaching expert level, so I am always skeptical when I see someone claiming that high-precision geospatial services are simple. I can tell clients that we have enough experience, education, training, and resources, plus rigorously tested workflows, to perform those services, but I wouldn't characterize them as simple.
A lot of clients often have no idea how robust of a product they need. We routinely see some pretty wild requirements in RFPs, and typically have to sit down and discuss what they want to use our deliverables for, so that we can figure out exactly what they need. We even get screwball requests from survey departments at municipal and state level - people who should know better and are supposed to be at least knowledgeable, if not experts, in geospatial services.
?ÿ
Your poll is misleading, ??Part-time RPLS to review work? you can hire a bus driver to review your work if you so desire without interference from a ??Board?.
But then you ask about employing a signature. You can do that too if you find someone stupid enough to agree. I would suggest you procure the maximum E&O available.
Which one is the question ?
Educating the client can certainly be part of the process in vetting the client/provider relationship. But ultimately, the client has the final say on what is acceptable.
The initial poster asked a straight forward question, seeking advice. Some responses were, effectively, "you don't know what you're doing", "you're not good enough", "you lack the expertise"... I wouldn't find that helpful.
I'm not sure I would say those posts were unhelpful.
I've worked for several engineering firms, and learned quite a few design techniques. Helped out the design teams when they were overloaded and needed someone with Civil 3D skills who knew how to do grading, utilities, profiles/corridors, etc. But wouldn't call myself a civil engineer just because I am familiar with their techniques. I worked underneath the PEs and EITs and followed their instructions because that's not my area of practice.
Having the finances to start a "consulting firm", plus some technical ability, doesn't make civil engineering my area of practice either.
I don't think any random group of licensed civil engineers would respond differently than the professionals on this thread if I went to that group and said "I can do all those simple services you licensed people can do, because I have worked for and supported civil engineers in the past. I am thinking about hiring one of you to approve all my designs, but only want to hire one of you part-time to sign plans that I am in charge of. Whaddya think?"
@rover83 you make some great points. These posts are sometimes difficult to get accurately describe intent on the first go. I should have been more descriptive.?ÿ
I would be looking at the arrangement as more of a part-time position due to the nature of the business. For every 1 project that would require a PLS, I may do 20 that are completely unrelated geophysical services that have no need for PLS. In the instances that would require it, I would be looking to them for project management and direction. They would be involved in bidding/planning/processing/report writing. I guess I envision it as almost a part-time partner situation where they deal with the legal side and I focus on the geophysical data collection/processing/interpreting. I'm a professional geologist who happens to be well versed in surveying and capable of doing the field work. So, circling back, any PLS would absolutely have final say. I doubt someone looking for a "rubber stamping" situation would take the time to solicit advice on a surveying forum on ethics.
?ÿ
Thanks for you response!
@stlsurveyor this is a good idea. I think maybe my post was a little vague, but ideally I would be looking at the PLS as more of a partner on the projects where a professional geologist and PLS overlap. We both handle our areas of expertise and are involved from bidding to report. I can obviously do the easy part of simply subbing out the PLS side, but I was hoping to form more of a long-lasting working relationship.?ÿ Maybe this just complicates things to the point where its just not worth the hassle. Its funny because surveyors don't need geophysics,?ÿ but geophysics without positioning is almost worthless. So, with that in mind most field geophysicists have the basics of surveying down simply as a necessity to collect to geo data.?ÿ
?ÿ
Interesting story, I was part of the first electromagnetic survey in wooded areas where we utilized two robotic total stations, both streaming pseudo nmea data to our geo data logger for 100% coverage with 3cm accuracies on targets. Now THAT was a challenge! A good geophysicist cares just as much about positioning quality as a PLS because trust me, if the geo data is off it creates nightmare scenarios in post-processing!
Anyway, thanks for your reply. I appreciate all of you who took the time to reply.
@paden-cash thanks for your response. Im sorry to hear that you have had bad encounters recently. Trust is most definitely earned, but I doubt a scammer would take the time to post an ethical discussion about surveying on a surveying forum.
I assure you I have the best intentions. Im simply trying to get the perspective of a PLS to better understand what a sustainable relationship between PLS and Professional Geologist looks like to both parties.
Wish you well and thanks for taking the time to reply!
?ÿ
@lurker and this is why word choice matters, folks! I apologize for using the word simpler. I meant it in the context that I dont need a PLS to physically occupy a point. I can do that myself. I need a PLS to make sure the workflow is correct and carried out as planned. The PLS would be more of a partner in what im trying to describe. I just don't see the need for a PLS to physically be in the field pressing the button on the types of projects im looking at performing. In my experience, most of the PLSs I've worked with have a younger field crew under their supervision. The PLS doesnt have to be there physically to supervise them.Think of me as the field crew in this situation. The PLS tells me what to do since im in the field collecting data anyway.?ÿ
This is where the confusion lies for me. If only a PLS can perform geophysical surveys, then why did I become a geophysicist? The simple truth is a good geophysicist cares as much about quality of positioning data as a PLS. The phrase "garbage in, garbage out" is a common warning amongst field geos because we all know how much it sucks to see positioning errors in post-processing..
Thank you for replying. My goal is to better understand the PLS perspective and I'm starting to get a better idea of how a PLS thinks.?ÿ
P.S. I WILL NEVER USE THE WORD SIMPLE TO A PLS AGAIN! 😉
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
