Not too thrilled to see drone user claiming to be able to survey and calc volumes for clients.
He needs to know who the State of Georgia allows for these measurements.
Unfortunately this is happening all over the country. Guys that don't have a license and own a drone doing mapping projects. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most states are still allowing non license holding individuals to this type of work?
Makes me wonder who (that needs this type of data) would use it from someone not licensed to do it. If the person using the data and writing checks to them is someone that is licensed maybe they are at more fault then the dummy operating without a license.
I'm not too worried about drone use and photography/aerial video.
But the text on his website says:
THE BENEFITS: The alternative to using a drone is to send out a team of surveyors.
Pretty ballsy talk.
I got an idea. Round up the unlicensed producer of the data and the licensed user of the data and have Monte take them out way out in West Texas and leave them. Problem solved.
I work for an engineering and surveying firm in Nevada. I sent out an RFP for a UAS aerial survey and got 5 proposals from groups who were start-up UAS companies only, no one with a proven track record. None had licensed engineers, surveyors, or photogrammetrist on staff. And all claimed they could fly in controlled airspace without a Part 107 waiver, which is blatantly illegal. Needless to say I was very disappointed to see how unethical and unprofessional these groups are who are claiming to perform prep cession all aerial mapping services.
Are we threatened by this because the public's going to be harmed? Haven't photogrammetry firms (often without an LS in responsible charge) been doing this kind of thing for decades? It seems to me that the difference now is that the financial barrier to entry to photogrammetry has fallen from $1 million to <$10,000, so now cheap photogrammetrists can really eat a surveyor's lunch, apples to apples. To be honest, I think it's a little embarrassing to be protectionist about measuring gravel pile volumes. Is that really what I want to claim all my specialized knowledge and experience is for?
Do you really need a four year degree, four years of experience and to pass a test about boundary law to fly a remote controled helicopter and measure a pile of gravel?
aliquot, post: 430965, member: 2486 wrote: Do you really need a four year degree, four years of experience and to pass a test about boundary law to fly a remote controled helicopter and measure a pile of gravel?
How reliable to want that measurement to be? If it doesn't matter, then no need to go to all the trouble of qualifying the measurers. If people have a right to rely on that measurement, then a commensurate degree of regulation is required.
aliquot, post: 430965, member: 2486 wrote: Do you really need a four year degree, four years of experience and to pass a test about boundary law to fly a remote controled helicopter and measure a pile of gravel?
]A good argument for having a basic measuring license with endorsements for aerial mapping, and/or boundary, and/or construction as one desires to qualify.
We hash these things out in our legislative and rulemaking process. As problems arise or the potential becomes evident, we amend policy to protect the public.
What I see happening now is simply another cycle of advance requiring a new look at pilicy. That 'look' probably wont require as much change as many think. Of course that depends on the structure of policy in your State. I contend that if you need a bunch of new laws to deal with this, you need to look at the basics of those States that don't. Technology that mimics oart of what we do is not limited to UAS and it's NOT going to slow down.
Jim Frame, post: 430969, member: 10 wrote: How reliable to want that measurement to be? If it doesn't matter, then no need to go to all the trouble of qualifying the measurers. If people have a right to rely on that measurement, then a commensurate degree of regulation is required.
Who qualifies ? Anyone with a surveying license ? Tough to tell who is 'worried' about the public welfare; and who it is that wants to cash in quantitatively on the new technology / mis-matched price structure, currently in place.
I mean if you wanted to offer materials volume determinations wouldn't you have to have some education or licensing in soils engineering or a related field to adequetly factor in compaction rates, or aggregate in volume? Same thing with photogrammetry in adjusting multiple pixelated images ?
If it is truly an inferior product the market forces would work that out and return a number of clients. Erecting the barriers to entry and then underperforming seems like would backfire spectacularly.
R.J. Schneider, post: 431027, member: 409 wrote: If it is truly an inferior product the market forces would work that out and return a number of clients.
The same argument pertains to licensing boundary surveyors. Why not let anyone mark boundaries and let the market sort the good ones from the bad ones?
Note that in my response above I didn't specify who I believe should be authorized to measure gravel piles, I merely indicated a preference for effective regulation in the public interest.
Jim Frame, post: 430969, member: 10 wrote: How reliable to want that measurement to be? If it doesn't matter, then no need to go to all the trouble of qualifying the measurers. If people have a right to rely on that measurement, then a commensurate degree of regulation is required.
I am not saying some regulation is not required, I just don't think someone needs to learn anything about boundary surveying to measure a pile of materials.
There certainly is a required base of knowledge to do this, but I don't think it requires a proffesional licence. A nurse doesn't need a M.D. to insert an I.V., an attorney isn't required every time a client signs a contract....
Jim Frame, post: 431032, member: 10 wrote: The same argument pertains to licensing boundary surveyors. Why not let anyone mark boundaries and let the market sort the good ones from the bad ones?
I would say there's more public interest vested in boundary surveying than stockpile determination, and add to that, materials enterprises are likely somewhat sophisticated concerning their business, and have an aproximation of inventory, where the general landowning public are vaguely aware of the intricacies of boundary surveying and law. Patent and latent boundary issues can lay dormant for decades, where the regular operation of materials rotation would identify inventory errors rather quickly.
Onsiteranger, post: 430937, member: 2247 wrote: Not too thrilled to see drone user claiming to be able to survey and calc volumes for clients.
He needs to know who the State of Georgia allows for these measurements.
Why not call them and have a professional conversation with them on the topic? It could be that they are just unaware of the legal requirements in your state. Or they could be fully aware they are working outside the rules. Either way you would have given them a chance, and then if you believe they are in violation of the state rules, file an official complaint.
My 2 cents ..
Onsiteranger, post: 430937, member: 2247 wrote: Not too thrilled to see drone user claiming to be able to survey and calc volumes for clients.
He needs to know who the State of Georgia allows for these measurements.
"He needs to know who the State of Georgia allows for these measurements."
I would say that the State of Georgia needs to know about this...
Onsiteranger, post: 430937, member: 2247 wrote: Not too thrilled to see drone user claiming to be able to survey and calc volumes for clients.
He needs to know who the State of Georgia allows for these measurements.
I think the same thing, but it feels like grasping at the tail of a greased pig that has a 2 mile head start...
