Dave Pitman
Well-Known Member
Nice summary, Mike. I pretty much agree with your points.
I respect the work that goes into learning to be a PLS. But, by reading the requirements to be licensed, it is obvious that in addition to education and training, one must also pay their dues to the "the club".
The professional surveying "club" has developed because it has previously been necessary to learn a great amount of very complicated concepts and materials precluding folks from just going to the library and training themselves. It has resulted in the software, the hardware and every aspect of the trade being very, very expensive. Bring on the new technology and you most certainly have the perfect environment for disruption. While it is still a technical subject, there can be no argument that new technology reduces the need for the operator to know how to do everything by hand. A PLS does not need to know how to build a total station in order to operate it correctly.
Notice that in his article, Carl C. de Baca, PS portrays the Chet character as some guy that bought a drone, stumbled into "mapping" and now provides lousy data, that looks good, to unsuspecting and unconcerned industrial clients. And then a PLS has to come along and spoil the show and clean up the mess. Those characters are out there, no doubt. But, what if Chet actually learns how to deliver data that both looks good, is accurate and verifiable, and is still way cheaper than the PLS is willing to do the work for? "Crap, now what?"
I think Mr de Baca is correct that the marketplace will ultimately decide if keeping the "club" intact is more important than reducing the cost to the public for certain data that doesn't necessarily need to be "stamp-able" in the first place.
I respect the work that goes into learning to be a PLS. But, by reading the requirements to be licensed, it is obvious that in addition to education and training, one must also pay their dues to the "the club".
The professional surveying "club" has developed because it has previously been necessary to learn a great amount of very complicated concepts and materials precluding folks from just going to the library and training themselves. It has resulted in the software, the hardware and every aspect of the trade being very, very expensive. Bring on the new technology and you most certainly have the perfect environment for disruption. While it is still a technical subject, there can be no argument that new technology reduces the need for the operator to know how to do everything by hand. A PLS does not need to know how to build a total station in order to operate it correctly.
Notice that in his article, Carl C. de Baca, PS portrays the Chet character as some guy that bought a drone, stumbled into "mapping" and now provides lousy data, that looks good, to unsuspecting and unconcerned industrial clients. And then a PLS has to come along and spoil the show and clean up the mess. Those characters are out there, no doubt. But, what if Chet actually learns how to deliver data that both looks good, is accurate and verifiable, and is still way cheaper than the PLS is willing to do the work for? "Crap, now what?"
I think Mr de Baca is correct that the marketplace will ultimately decide if keeping the "club" intact is more important than reducing the cost to the public for certain data that doesn't necessarily need to be "stamp-able" in the first place.
