Similar.?ÿ
I always call out my rod height as I'm changing it, so I engage the IP or at the very least give myself a reminder of the thing I'm doing.
I'll master the construction staking and landfill certification process?ÿ then give you a call.
That's awesome
But I'm not going to do it, or have others do it, just because of a one time event.?ÿ?ÿ
I have a different take on that story. It's not awesome.
That company ran a substantial amount of "QA/QC". Sounds like they had one member of the party (PC) pretty well just taking notes. 45 days of field time (so a pretty significant project, presumably covering a significant area), and yet they sent a (very) bad plan out the door.?ÿ
This says to me that their systems aren't working. Possibly that the QA/QC system is too convoluted and not adhered to, or had steps missing. If heights booked in the field were not successfully transferred for correction, that presumably also means that those heights in the field are also not checked during processing and are only really useful as a way to fix things after an error is found.
FWIW, an alternative system to manage these gross errors is to run quality strings across the data collected from another station, or with a different instrument. Takes only a minute or so as you move up the traverse, and allows for simple, even automated, software checks and report generation on the quality of the work.
You are correct with your conclusion that the QA/QC system failed. The surveyor and the owner that was neither a surveyor nor engineer, were butting heads for some time before the plans were issued.?ÿ I can only speculate to the reason the office staff/PLS ignored the field notes. My example of how valuable the redundant field notes were in this particular situation, was almost 30 years ago, before the data collectors (in the hands of a green i-man) could give quality control measures in the field, other than inverse between two shots taken on the same point.
Granted, redundant procedures may seem to be time consuming and useless, and even a moral buster for some. For others, this small, seemingly insignificant note may save hours of time in the future. If a seemingly insignificant procedure is implemented and it becomes a moral issue, I'd have to look at the way it was introduced to crew.
Everyone has their own way of doing things. What works for me may not work for others. It doesn't mean it is stupid to follow, or not to follow that specific procedure, only that it works or doesn't work for you.
Stepping down from the soap box now...
Granted, redundant procedures may seem to be time consuming and useless, and even a moral buster for some. For others, this small, seemingly insignificant note may save hours of time in the future. If a seemingly insignificant procedure is implemented and it becomes a moral issue, I'd have to look at the way it was introduced to crew.
Everyone has their own way of doing things. What works for me may not work for others. It doesn't mean it is stupid to follow, or not to follow that specific procedure, only that it works or doesn't work for you.
Agreed. Sometimes the stakes are high enough that implementing otherwise "pointless" procedures makes sense.
Not all of us do the exact same type of projects all the time, and what might be pointless for one job is critical for another.
I despise assembly-line surveying. Any PLS worth their salt needs to be able to assess a job and make modifications accordingly, as well as explain to crews, techs, etc. the value of those modifications.
@rover83?ÿ
I have yet to find any situation in this profession that has only one way to proceed. There are no hard-fast rules that fit every situation. The mark of a professional is knowing when and why to apply the rule that fits best.
Me. "What's the difference?"
T.C. Carroll "It's the difference between right and wrong!"
Sorry, Kevin, I was just in a mood.?ÿ The guy after you usually gets me there quick with his somewhat condescending, lecturing tone of his posts.?ÿ But he's not alone in that, this place has a few