Could you define that? Do you mean design the receiver and antennae, be able to write your own code to calculate your position, create your own ellipsoid model, create your own geoid model, etc etc?
I agree with what @rover83 said above, so I'm not going to waste time saying the same basic things.
For 99% of surveyors, there's no need to know how to write processing and filtering algorithms to compute baselines, but I would argue that anyone using GNSS for professional-level work needs to at least know what errors must be considered and how they contribute. Time errors, atmospheric errors, orbital errors, integer ambiguity, noise, multipath.
I think the surveyor should know about the aspects that the surveyor can control and manipulate.?ÿ If there is something wrong with the code the surveyor isn't going to be able to fix that.?ÿ If there is a condition nearby that would cause a significant multipath error (for instance) the surveyor can either move the unit or use another one of his/her tools.
Because if you can't do that at some point it is a black box and you have to trust the manufacture.
You are right?ÿ In every aspect of what we do there are "black boxes."?ÿ There will always be aspects that we don't understand.?ÿ Understanding everything isn't the objective, and it isn't possible.?ÿ
I would posit the same was true of the robot you are using. I am not trying to refute your statement, but asking for some clarification, some additional information.
You don't need to know how to program it, but you should know the effects of a short backsight, the error introduced when shooting through brush or between obstacles, atmospheric ppm error, the angular and distance accuracy, the accuracy of the compensators, the divergence of the beam, as well as geodesy pertaining to coordinate system projections and datums.?ÿ The point I'm trying to make is that you don't need to know how the total station is programmed, but you should know about the aspects that affect what you are doing.?ÿ
?ÿ