Question

Not a problem. Surveying is a lesser profession clearly below engineering. A veritable stroll in the park by comparison.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Elvis has left the building.

I can do my job without any engineering. Can an engineer do their job without any surveying?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Tom Healy, post: 449670, member: 1139 wrote: I can do my job without any engineering. Can an engineer do their job without any surveying?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

... Mic Drop!

Let the Engineers pay sales tax and we will be able to make a comparison as to who is dependent upon the other.
Engineers can not do what I do without mucking something up.

Some Engineers treat Surveyors as inferior. Some respect us as a separate Profession. I have worked for the former and now only work for the latter. Ive seen these attitudes around the world with no basis beyond personalities (or lack thereof).
As for us being a subset of Engineering, the thing that makes the US different is our land tenure systems. Some of our duties certainly are done solely to support Engineers. The boundary functions we perform use some of the basic math common to Engineering, but the relationship ends there. We do our best work when we combine law, history, science and even a touch of art...

Jim in AZ, post: 449665, member: 249 wrote: This is kind of odd as surveyors in many countries are very happy that surveying is an engineering discipline, but here in the US that does not play well.

My impression is that the nature of the land tenure system in the US, as opposed to those in other first world countries, contains (for lack of better term) a level of instability that is not seen in other countries that have a title registry system, or a coordinate based cadastre. From this flows the "quasi-legal" status of land surveyors in the US and the difference between surveyors here and abroad, the fact that surveyors in many other countries are happy to be an engineering discipline because they are closer to being an engineering discipline than we are here in the states.

Please clarify whether you're talking about surveying in Texas or in the lesser states

I see it as an attitude that's cultivated in some companies. Here, I've been asked to go back to a site to get inverts that weren't requested on the first trip. I tell the "engineers", (really techs, not licensed), that we're off somewhere else for a while, and won't be back there any time soon, but they're more than welcome to take a truck with tools, and get the inverts themselves. The usual response is that they'll wait till we have a chance to go back.

A lot of the time too, they're going back to these sites for meetings or other reasons, so they're right there, but they must feel that opening manholes is beneath them.

It might be the attitude that we just collect data, but they do actual design work. And it seems that they love to do paperwork and file reports

I've heard that in larger civil/survey companies the surveying side actually brings in quite a bit more money than the engineering. Any truth to this?

JPH, post: 449682, member: 6636 wrote: I see it as an attitude that's cultivated in some companies. Here, I've been asked to go back to a site to get inverts that weren't requested on the first trip. I tell the "engineers", (really techs, not licensed), that we're off somewhere else for a while, and won't be back there any time soon, but they're more than welcome to take a truck with tools, and get the inverts themselves. The usual response is that they'll wait till we have a chance to go back.

A lot of the time too, they're going back to these sites for meetings or other reasons, so they're right there, but they must feel that opening manholes is beneath them.

It might be the attitude that we just collect data, but they do actual design work. And it seems that they love to do paperwork and file reports

I avoid all that drama by taking part in scope prep and understanding the project goal. When they ask me to get something they didnt ask for I let them know its in the drawing already.

thebionicman, post: 449687, member: 8136 wrote: I avoid all that drama by taking part in scope prep and understanding the project goal. When they ask me to get something they didnt ask for I let them know its in the drawing already.

Thanks, that's great, but that's not really the point, being that they'd rather wait for the lowly surveyor than to dirty their hands by opening a yucky manhole themselves.

Also, in this particular case, I specifically asked about inverts, and was told, no. I don't usually waste my or crew time picking up details I've been told aren't needed.

I guess it is all how surveying is viewed by the engineer and the engineering discipline you work closely with. I have worked at firms where surveying was beneath anyone in the engineering department and the CAD department. Likewise, I have worked in firms where surveying is an equal. What I have found over the years is; it all in how the Engineer is taught. The ones that see surveying as equals have done tour of duties on a crew or worked as a survey tech or have worked in the surveying field in some manner. Those are the ones that see us as equals. The ones that believe surveying is beneath them, have been those right out of college, no real field experience what so ever, and have only office experience. Sad to say the latter are majority engineers in my area.

One of the fortunate things is where I work, our departments (surveying and engineering) work hand in hand. I have actually put the engineer manager out in the field with my field crew coordinator to get some work completed on time. Likewise, I get plans on my desk and my project mangers desk (PLS also) for constructively checks and reality checks (this what the owner calls them to make sure everything will work). What is interesting this the only firm where I have worked where the surveying drives the engineering and not the other way around.

But like what Tom Healy Said:

Tom Healy, post: 449670, member: 1139 wrote: I can do my job without any engineering. Can an engineer do their job without any surveying?

JPH, post: 449689, member: 6636 wrote: Thanks, that's great, but that's not really the point, being that they'd rather wait for the lowly surveyor than to dirty their hands by opening a yucky manhole themselves.

Also, in this particular case, I specifically asked about inverts, and was told, no. I don't usually waste my or crew time picking up details I've been told aren't needed.

It comes down to something more basic. Your experience likely told you those inverts might be important. At some point you have to stop letting those techs determine the efficiency and quality of your work. So what if they think they are too good to dip manholes? Be the Professional and do what needs done.

Another thing that happens is that the engineers request a crew for work, sometimes for a day or a week. I arrange the crew, equipment, and set them up for a specific day, and then I touch base the day before, to confirm, and I sometimes get the news that the crew isn't needed any longer.

It's 4:00 on a wednesday, what am I supposed to do with the crew now, for the rest of the week? They just shrug their shoulders and go back to their CAD.

There were no licensed surveyors when I began my career in the '60s. The State of Oklahoma did not have any sort of professional identity for surveyors until late '68 and early '69. Before that engineers signed plats and surveys. The initial 800 or so applicants that were licensed were mostly engineers. The application involved 5 letters of recommendation, 3 of which needed to be from engineers.

The first 10 years of my surveying career were spent working for civil firms; that's where the work was at. The thought of running an outfit that dealt "only" with surveying was, at best, a dream. Those surveyors that were able "make it on their own" back then just contracted with engineers to keep their doors open.

And sadly there was a common thought that surveyors were merely staff for engineers. I really couldn't tell you if this concept was consciously perpetuated by engineers or not, but it was common. It was almost twenty years before I ran into an engineer that would freely admit they knew nothing of the survey realm save a couple of rudimentary classes early on in their education.

Most engineers see their projects from their own perspective. Their interest in the surveying portion was narrowed to the mechanics of the collection of topo data or the identification and location of existing infrastructure. Property lines and right-of-way is, at times, way down there on their 'dignity of calls'.

I personally avoid engineering projects simply because they bore me. Without stepping on anyone's toes I would like to say it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to correctly present a topo or as-built an existing sanitary sewer. I prefer to apply my professional abilities in areas where they are needed. I was discussing fees with an engineer once over a proposal for the surveying end of a development project. He had balked at the amount of time I had put into my estimate for "boundary" work. He actually told me "he didn't need all of that". We agreed on a price for a "topo" only. After I turned the work over to his techs one of them called me and wanted to know "where is the property line?"...since it wasn't part of the drawing. I told him I didn't have any idea, maybe he should ask his boss. I was eventually paid to return and tie down the topo data to the boundary I had to establish.

I am sensitive to some engineer's attitude that surveyors are merely support personnel. That is why I have avoided getting mixed up them over the years. But my sensitivity is based on my experiences. I had a partnership with an engineer back in the '90s. He was interviewing with a local municipality for a project replacing a good amount of sanitary sewer in an older residential area (back yards) and about a mile of new outfall that ran through some nasty woods. The surveying end of the project was fairly labor intensive. His proposal to the city (including surveying) was around 190K; 20K of that being my surveying estimate.

He negotiated with the city and got the contract, but it was for 180K, not his original 190K. Unknown to me he had cut my surveying price by 10K. I would have thought both our prices could have been reduced in a proportionate manner. He told me his estimate (for the engineering) was "bare boned" and he knew my surveying fees had a lot of fluff. I believe I used the term "arrogant a**hole".

That not only ended my partnership with him...that was the last time I actively sought out any engineering oriented surveying. I was sure I'd live longer without associating with engineers...and I was right.

thebionicman, post: 449692, member: 8136 wrote: It comes down to something more basic. Your experience likely told you those inverts might be important. At some point you have to stop letting those techs determine the efficiency and quality of your work. So what if they think they are too good to dip manholes? Be the Professional and do what needs done.

I disagree with you, then. If I ask about inverts, and I'm told no, I'm not going to waste time doing them. They're doing the design, I don't know what they might or might not need.

And in my first post, I never said that I wasn't going to send a crew back, just that I couldn't do it instantly.

JPH, post: 449695, member: 6636 wrote: I disagree with you, then. If I ask about inverts, and I'm told no, I'm not going to waste time doing them. They're doing the design, I don't know what they might or might not need.

And in my first post, I never said that I wasn't going to send a crew back, just that I couldn't do it instantly.

Your description of the 'team dynamic' at your place sounds horrible and unhealthy. You have direct control over one side of the relationship. You can use it to elevate the practice or continue on the same path. Serms like an easy choice to me...

thebionicman, post: 449696, member: 8136 wrote: Your description of the 'team dynamic' at your place sounds horrible and unhealthy. You have direct control over one side of the relationship. You can use it to elevate the practice or continue on the same path. Serms like an easy choice to me...

Huh? Maybe I'm missing something that you can point out, how I could've handled this so that I'm elevating the practice.

I have been an indirect witness (i.e. on a field crew who had to repeat work) to a number of engineers apparently not knowing what they need either. Even though they are supposedly designing a job, they say they don't need inverts. Next thing we know, the field crew is making a second, sometimes a 4th trip out to a site to get "fill in" info the engineer Should have asked for the First time, not the fourth.

We didn't get inverts they didn't ask for. We didn't go 400' beyond the property line locating things, even though it was clearly stated "go 300 feet". We didn't locate trees over x inches, though we were told they weren't needed.

Why does the motto we had at my old company come to mind? "We don't have time to do it right the first time, but we can get it right the third"?

I know I shared the following story here a while back, but here goes anyway, since this relates.

Somebody in the office designed a cul-de-sac. Wrong, probably with the help of early software. (I do not know if this was an engineer or a "grunt"). After it was built, right in the center of the cul-de-sac was a 5'+ cone of paving.

I swear, the field crew I was on was sent out at least 5 times to "topo" that tall mound. I got to wondering out loud why some engineering type could not be bothered to drive out and look at it with their own eyes instead of obviously being convinced we topoed it wrong.