California Surveyors Forums

Some discussion has been going on where I work about limits to engineering surveys. Some think that 8726(f) reserves "Geodetic" surveying to Land Surveyors. They would require all PEs to work with a Land Surveyor when is a need to certify drawings with a stated horizontal or vertical datum. I'm not so sure it's that clear cut, or possibly I have missed something.

fv

Geodetic Surveying is within the definintion of Land Survey in California and thus is regulated by the Land Surveyor's Act.

The PE Act allows Engineers to do some surveying related to fixed works embraced within the practice of civil enginnering, and topography.

I beleive that once a survey is related to known datums that by definition are relative to the earth's surface, then it falls outside of the purview of the Engineer. See the attached Board write up on Hydrographic surveying.

You might want to formulate a similar letter along with specific situational questions for the Board more focused on what is and what is not allowed under 6731.1

Thanks for the reply. I see the opinion is expressed in favor of the Land Surveyor, but I am struck by the nearly exact wording in 8726 (b) and 6731.1 (b). It seems odd that the Engineer would be prohibited from simply referencing his contours and position to tied NGS control published on a specific datum.

Note that 8726(b) and 6731.1(b) are almost identical word for word. Key is "almost". For surveyors, 8726(b) uses the word "mathematics" but for civil engineers 6731.1(b) uses the word "trigonometry". This is not without cause. Couple the subtle difference between 8726(b) and 6731.1(b) with the additional authority vested in surveyors by the language within 8726(f) regarding geodetic surveying, and the guidance extracted is that engineers are limited to plane surveying.

I don't see that as limiting the engineer from relating his plane surveying work to the elevation of a specific benchmark because that benchmark has a published elevation determined through geodesy.

I laugh out loud at the idea that a surveyor could somehow use "mathematics" while an engineer would be limited to the use of "trigonometry". That's like giving the diner cook full use of the spice cabinet while limiting the chef to salt.

Depends where the engineer and the surveyor each got their education. Where I went to school (OIT), the surveyors are required to take the same level of mathematics required of the civil engineering students and encouraged to take up to a year more. I suspect that the same may be true at Fresno and at many other schools which offer ABET accredited BS degrees for surveying (or geomagics).

If they go on to get an MS or PhD, the surveyor (or geodesist or geomagician) is likely to significantly surpass the engineer in mathematics training.

Besides, once out of school, most engineers stick to standard cookbooks (std specs), pre-packaged meals (pre-engineered structures) and microwave cooking (let CADD figure it out), and barely remember that there is a spice cabinet in the kitchen. Chef? Chef Boy-ar-dee is more like it. ( ;-) smiley face so you know it's all in good fun and don't get bent out of shape.

I'm going to start lurking around the Engineers in my office with my pad of complaint forms. I'm sure I'll eventually catch one of them using other than trigonometry.

Evan,
I'm yer huckleberry.
OIT wasted your time because you learned a bunch of mathematics without learning how to apply those mathematics to something tangible. You never learned why and how to apply your mathematics to every day life. I know this because I have never encountered a survey related problem that required more that a high school level understanding of math.

So let's fall back on something you and I both claim to have a handle on, that being algebra, geometry, trig, and elementary calculus. We are equal here right? Yeah, right dude.

I'll give you a quiz and immediately give you the answer. What do you do when you can't find the formula in your book? You invent your own equation. That is what engineers do. That is the command engineers have over the domain of mathematics.

Why do engineers know that? It is because they have learned to solve problems, problems where the knowns and unknowns are difficult to differentiate, problems where the focus is difficult to pinpoint, problems where the output doesn't match the input, problems where after experimentation you cannot predict the outcome, problems where the answer requires and intuition you can't find in a math book.

What is geodesy really? A funky shaped rock spinning about an axis that adjusts on a fixed pattern. That is third semester calculus where I come from. Big deal.

You are asking to get into a pissing contest with a skunk. As your professional engineering and land surveying consultant, I advise you to use caution.

All in good fun Evan. I have a couple of Fresno State PE PLS friends who see both sides of this story. But remember, the FSU geomatics program is (or was) offered under the engineering program.

Clark,

I don't know why you would think that OIT does not teach how to apply the math they teach. I also don't know why you think that deriving formulae to solve particular problems is some lofty mystic knowledge granted only to those worthy of being called engineers. I've done that many times and will likely do it many more.

You're making the mistake that the extent of surveying practice is that which you have been engaged in or have been directly exposed to. There are facets of surveying that I know very little about, and you apparently know somewhat less about. Some of those require the competent use of mathematics that is well beyond what you or I have learned and well beyond the difficulty or complexity required in any problem of civil engineering most are likely to see in an entire career.

Prior to OIT, I attended Ferris State University in MI. That is an EAC program with math & science requirements equivalent to CE programs, and equivalent to what I took at OIT. Granted, the minimum requirements for the degree at OIT were somewhat less, but most students went beyond the minimums.

Not that it matters, because as you are well aware, the only math skill most civils use after getting their license is remembering which keys to press on their calculator. Darn near all design elements are pulled straight from published specifications. On the rare occasion they actually do any calculations - that is actually running numbers through formulae that was either pulled from a book or derived, they take the final answer and multiply it by a healthy "safety factor" ostensibly in case someone later places too much load on whatever is designed. Everyone knows however that it's merely a fudge factor to cover over any mathematical mistakes and that the real safety factor is to blame the surveyor staking the job for not catching bad design elements prior to staking or, if no one else detects the bad design, blame the surveyor for staking it incorrectly, marking wrong cuts, etc.