The first question for any survey should be 'What is the survey for?'. Once you know what the Engineer is going to build or do, apply your expertise to tell you what needs located. Compare that to what they ask for. Make your case for items you know you need and listen to them where you disagree. One or both of you should come away a little smarter for it. You will eliminate 'go-backs' and the team will work more efficiently.
I get the frustration with not being valued and dealing with self-important butt heads. The best way to get past it is prove your worth. Even if the only person who sees it the guy in the mirror you win.
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
Engineering that isn't fixed to any real estate on Earth doesn't need surveying. For example, two projects I worked on, indirectly: Spirit and Opportunity. If you go by the theory that you practice your profession where your project is located, rather than where you are located, I'm a Martian engineer.
thebionicman, post: 449708, member: 8136 wrote: The first question for any survey should be 'What is the survey for?'. Once you know what the Engineer is going to build or do, apply your expertise to tell you what needs located. Compare that to what they ask for. Make your case for items you know you need and listen to them where you disagree. One or both of you should come away a little smarter for it. You will eliminate 'go-backs' and the team will work more efficiently.
I get the frustration with not being valued and dealing with self-important butt heads. The best way to get past it is prove your worth. Even if the only person who sees it the guy in the mirror you win.
So you know more than the design engineers, then?
There are times when inverts aren't needed, as they've been provided by the client. They made a mistake this time, but as said, it wasn't the point of my complaint.
So, you'd spend an extra half-day popping structures even if you're told they don't need them? Great. I'd need to explain the lost time for doing something out of scope.
My frustration is the unrealistic expectations of others, and the reluctance of engineers to get off their asses, especially when it's engineering data they need, and they're fully capable of doing it too.
ashton, post: 449729, member: 422 wrote: Engineering that isn't fixed to any real estate on Earth doesn't need surveying. For example, two projects I worked on, indirectly: Spirit and Opportunity. If you go by the theory that you practice your profession where your project is located, rather than where you are located, I'm a Martian engineer.
Did either of those missions include an Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator?
"Scope of the project"
That statement has many meanings, dependent upon who's in the hot seat.
When I am out there surveying and set points way outside of the project or take some inverts on existing manholes or locate buildings or structures or any physical object, they are for my use and references.
The purpose I do this is for me to understand and not for anyone else.
I have found that my initial survey will probably be destroyed and I want to make sure that I am able to prove where things were when they have been destroyed and some engineer wants to say my measurements are off and wants to push everything wrong into my plate.
That is why I do more and locate things outside of the scope of the engineer and have evidence to prove where things were before and where plans say the new things are to be.
An engineer can just pull out some plans and does not have to prove it is where it is supposed to be, just that what is built matches the plans.
A surveyor must know where things were, are and gonna be and be able to prove it at any time.
0.02
roger_LS, post: 449686, member: 11550 wrote: 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?
When I first got started in the "Surveying Profession" 60+ years ago, most of the ones doing the surveying were Civil Engineers that were either licensed as a PE&LS or only had their Surveyors license. Surveying was their bread and butter either way. Of course when they were in college, they were taught many aspects of surveying along with their engineering courses and were pretty well versed in surveying. Many of them were required to attend what was called a "Summer Camp" where all they did was surveying and the calculations involved with the projects they were working on in the camp. Some Summer Camps were only one summer of their college years and some were two summers.
Since July 2011, all license certificates issued in California for PE's have my signature on them. Yep, that's right...a land surveyor is signing the engineer's license.
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
When I had my firm in Wyoming, I had an engineer that worked for me from 1975 until he retired again in 1981, that used to be my boss when I was employed by the Bureau of Reclamation in 1960-1966. He was from the "Old School", thorough, looked at the whole picture, and thought things out before making any hasty decisions whenever a question arose about a project problem, etc. Whenever he had a sewer line design project and during the construction phase, he would go down into the manholes in order to lamp the pipe, manhole to manhole to see how round the image was. Like most of the engineers of his era, he was licensed as a surveyor before being licensed as an engineer also.
I shared an office with an engineer for a while. We both kept our own projects and on occasion worked on each other's projects. It was a good relationship and we both made out good. While he was mainly involved in residential development ( I prepared his plats) he would take on municipal work from time to time. One such project was a "remove and replace" project involving about 8000' of older and smaller diameter water mains. The project mainly consisted of valve, hydrant and meter locations along with any storm or sanitary sewer crossings that might conflict and pavement type/ locations for trench repair....and construction staking.
We both had two office techs, but one of his was on extended leave and he was short handed. He had asked me to not only provide all the field data, but wanted my office tech to build the P&P sheets also. I gave him a price without knowing his contract amount.
He was a bit flustered at my amount. It seems as though it was going to cost him about 75% of his contract for me to perform all the work within his scope. My numbers weren't anywhere near crazy. As a matter of fact I gave him some really good numbers just because we had a good relationship.
When he tugged at the reigns and started back-peddling I finally had to ask him how many hours he was planning on putting in the project...red-lining a few prints, estimating quantities and cut-pasting some contract docs. He realized his time in the project would be a lot less than mine.
I finally summarized his frustration by asking him, "Where is this unwritten rule that states the engineer always has to make more money than the surveyor?"
He couldn't answer. We did the project and both made good money. 😉
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
This has my vote for quote of the month
I worked for a number of years for an engineering/survey firm that had both Engineer (Construction) Surveyors and Land survey crews. The land survey side was notorious for making little or no money on their jobs, and the Engineering Survey was the real bread-and-butter.
In using building construction as an analogy, I liken the construction surveyor or the new boundary surveyor (such as staking new boundaries in a subdivision) to new construction where it's quick and straight-forward. No you can't be making any mistakes, but you just use the appropriate material and methods to put it where it's designed.
Whereas retracement surveying is like remodeling or repair in an old house. You never know what you will run into and it can lead to much greater problems than first anticipated. You go to lay new hardwood flooring and find that the floor is not level, or you open up a wall, and you find a bunch of water damage. Same with retracement surveying, you go to find existing monuments and they don't match other existing monuments and don't fit to the original legal description. You find all kinds of conflicting evidence, and you need to figure out how to put the old broken-down boundary back together again as good as new.
Tom Adams, post: 449799, member: 7285 wrote: I worked for a number of years for an engineering/survey firm that had both Engineer (Construction) Surveyors and Land survey crews. The land survey side was notorious for making little or no money on their jobs, and the Engineering Survey was the real bread-and-butter.
In using building construction as an analogy, I liken the construction surveyor or the new boundary surveyor (such as staking new boundaries in a subdivision) to new construction where it's quick and straight-forward. No you can't be making any mistakes, but you just use the appropriate material and methods to put it where it's designed.
Whereas retracement surveying is like remodeling or repair in an old house. You never know what you will run into and it can lead to much greater problems than first anticipated. You go to lay new hardwood flooring and find that the floor is not level, or you open up a wall, and you find a bunch of water damage. Same with retracement surveying, you go to find existing monuments and they don't match other existing monuments and don't fit to the original legal description. You find all kinds of conflicting evidence, and you need to figure out how to put the old broken-down boundary back together again as good as new.
That's a great analogy.
In the large engineering firm were I worked surveying, surveying existed only to feed the engineers and we were the bottom rung. In any event, I once asked the principle engineers son why he was on the survey crew for the summer rather than learning engineering.
His honest straight forward response was that his dad told him to work surveying for the summer so he would learn what not to do with his life.
JPH, post: 449746, member: 6636 wrote: So you know more than the design engineers, then?
There are times when inverts aren't needed, as they've been provided by the client. They made a mistake this time, but as said, it wasn't the point of my complaint.
So, you'd spend an extra half-day popping structures even if you're told they don't need them? Great. I'd need to explain the lost time for doing something out of scope.
My frustration is the unrealistic expectations of others, and the reluctance of engineers to get off their asses, especially when it's engineering data they need, and they're fully capable of doing it too.
After 38 years I can do a topo without direction from the techs you describe so yes, I do. As for the inverts you said they told you they werent needed, not that they had them.
The point of my post wasnt to pick anyone apart. It was to point out the unheathy attitudes and processes. One mark of a Professional is being able to tell the client what he needs and what to expect.. Our Engineers are our internal clients. We work together to make sure they have what they need first time out. I could care less if they ever dip a manhole. My concern is that I give them a complete product and that starts with communicating about the job in an open way.
thebionicman, post: 449813, member: 8136 wrote: After 38 years I can do a topo without direction from the techs you describe so yes, I do. As for the inverts you said they told you they werent needed, not that they had them.
The point of my post wasnt to pick anyone apart. It was to point out the unheathy attitudes and processes. One mark of a Professional is being able to tell the client what he needs and what to expect.. Our Engineers are our internal clients. We work together to make sure they have what they need first time out. I could care less if they ever dip a manhole. My concern is that I give them a complete product and that starts with communicating about the job in an open way.
I'm sure that you know what you're doing, I'm not really questioning your methods as you are mine here, just that you're turning my scenario into something else. The point is that, no matter how or why the inverts weren't obtained, the fact is that they needed them. And even though the engineers would be back to the site a few times before we got a chance, and they wanted them ASAP, they didn't even consider dipping them themselves.
(as a side-note this "topo" was not necessarily for civil, but mechanical design, so the main objective was to get a lot of piping, above ground detail, with the ground topo as more of a fill-in. The scope expanded, so that civil was added, with the inverts now being necessary. As said though, that wasn't the point, but it seems to be what you've fixated on, and I don't know why I'm bothering explaining, as you'll probably continue to push your tangential point here)
The separation of disciplines is unhealthy for both, one day we will unite again.
JPH, post: 449746, member: 6636 wrote: So you know more than the design engineers, then?
There are times when inverts aren't needed, as they've been provided by the client. They made a mistake this time, but as said, it wasn't the point of my complaint.
So, you'd spend an extra half-day popping structures even if you're told they don't need them? Great. I'd need to explain the lost time for doing something out of scope.
My frustration is the unrealistic expectations of others, and the reluctance of engineers to get off their asses, especially when it's engineering data they need, and they're fully capable of doing it too.
You sound like an angry man. Someone is giving you advice on business relationships that has allowed him to be successful and you would rather shout him down than listen, understand, and learn.
What thebionicman is suggesting is exactly how I work with engineers. We have a healthy and happy relationship with a seemingly endless amount of work. They respect what I do because I help them understand what they need in addition to what they ask for. I take the time to understand the project, make suggestions to the scope based on my experience. That helps reduce and eliminate return trips.
You also have to account for the unknown in the field. Understanding the whole project helps in the identification of where to look for and account for those possibilities when estimating your field time. Even so, you're never going to be perfect and neither are the engineers. Understanding there will be error, where it tends to occur, how to minimize or correct it.........well thats a lot like surveying.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BushAxe, post: 449856, member: 11897 wrote: You sound like an angry man. Someone is giving you advice on business relationships that has allowed him to be successful and you would rather shout him down than listen, understand, and learn.
What thebionicman is suggesting is exactly how I work with engineers. We have a healthy and happy relationship with a seemingly endless amount of work. They respect what I do because I help them understand what they need in addition to what they ask for. I take the time to understand the project, make suggestions to the scope based on my experience. That helps reduce and eliminate return trips.
You also have to account for the unknown in the field. Understanding the whole project helps in the identification of where to look for and account for those possibilities when estimating your field time. Even so, you're never going to be perfect and neither are the engineers. Understanding there will be error, where it tends to occur, how to minimize or correct it.........well thats a lot like surveying.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Probably no more angry than the next guy.
Just annoyed at this point, that you both are grabbing onto a peripheral part of the story and that your lack of comprehension of the situation, even after I've explained it in my last post.
Who's shouting? You have no knowledge that I don't, "..take the time to understand the project, make suggestions to the scope based on my experience..." That's your assumption. If you bothered to read what I wrote, this is something that came up afterward, as an expanded scope.
There are engineers and then there are engineers, heck I was out in the field with one this week.
He was topoing a site for a design while I was surveying the section. At the end of the work day we rode a road that he designed and staked. The contractor had left a week before and this was the first chance he had to look at the finished project.
So he does the field work, the design work, stakes it out and reviews the finished product.
There aren't too many of those types left but they are out there.
He's more likely to be found in a camo stocking hat and carhartts than khakis and a dress shirt.
As it has been pointed out the problem with comparing surveying in the U.S. with the rest of the developed world is that the U.S. land tenure system is much less developed. This provides an opportunity for a category of professional surveying that is completely separate from engineering.
Most non boundary work is a subset of civil enginnering, and although it can require a knowledge base that is as complex as needed for civil engineering it is easily viewed as subordinate to engineering. In many states engineers can perform "engineering surveys", but surveyors can't, for example, design a bridge.
What really frustrates me is that academia almost exclusively treats surveying as sub branch of engineering. This not only ensures a lot of bad boundary surveying, it perpetuates the idea that we should be ranked below engineers.
