More than 95% of my operators are Hispanic. Many of them are here without green cards. Imagine if those talented operators could run equipment without ever having to deal with immigration issues?
More than 95% of my operators are Hispanic. Many of them are here without green cards. Imagine if those talented operators could run equipment without ever having to deal with immigration issues?
In reply to SV reX :
You might be over-sharing in what you wrote above
In reply to John Welsh :
It's pretty well known. I don't think there are any secrets there.
John Welsh said:SV reX said::
Now an operator can operate a dozen different machines at the same time anywhere in the country from an air conditioned office.
Now an operator can operate a dozen different machines at the same time anywhere from a 3rd world country, at 3rd world wages from an air conditioned office
Colorado requires a certain percentage of work to be done by "disadvantaged business entities" - aka, owned by women or minorities. Outsourcing operators to the equivalent of an Indian call center would sure torpedo the intent of that particular law.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
The laws rarely keep up with disruptive advances in technology.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
I'm pretty sure most Indian call centers are owned by Indians who would certainly qualify as minorities in Colorado.
Oh wait... They're in India...
BTW, my opinion of laws about "disadvantaged business entities" is pretty much in the toilet.
In construction, shell subsidiary companies are set up all the time. They partner with 1 minority owner who gets 51% of the ownership stake (but a much smaller share of the profits). The profits are minimized while the expenses are maximized. The entire staff is made of employees and management who are not minorities (and are actually employees of another non-minority owned business). But it's minority owned, and therefore qualifies as a "disadvantaged business entity".
Almost zero minority persons benefit. The one guy who is a 51% "owner" spends most of his time playing golf and showing his skin color to chambers of commerce and government do-nothings. Competitive bid requirements are circumvented, and the companies are awarded contracts by their good ol' boy buddies who don't have to get competitive bids if they are working with "disadvantaged business entities".
Total berkeleyed up charade.
As a former operator, I'll just say there are things you feel in the real ( think butt gyro) that can't be translated remotely.
When dozers start burying themselves up to their bellies...
In reply to Appleseed :
I very much agree with you, but I'm interested in the idea. Cat claims they are transmitting the feel.. real operators would know. We'll see...
Not going to lead to control centers moving overseas. Lag and latency are still a thing. The speed of light is finite.
Ever played an online shooter? You are at a disadvantage playing against people on a server on the other side of America. If you try to play on a server across an OCEAN, routing through multiple nodes and such, it's dang near impossible. Keep in mind that every input has to cross that ocean TWICE before you find out what happened.
Imagine the damage that can be done if there is a 1/10 - 1/4 second of lag between operator and action. I'd have trouble operating a forklift like that, I can't imagine what an excavator would be like.
I don't think I'd have a crew work an area larger than one U.S. state. And probably at least 2 in places like CA and Texas.
Don't forget that licensing and insurance are a thing. I can't imagine trying to get an insurance company to offer coverage as soon as you tell them the people operating equipment that can kill someone are outside of the country.
In reply to Beer Baron :
Very good points.
Caterpillar is smart. I don't see this as a quick change. I see it as a long game, with them seeing the future and moving toward it methodically.
First, they get the remote operators in place. Then they gather data and keep improving.
I agree with everything you said. But if their game is a 20 year game, a lot of things could happen which make their investment worthwhile. And their approach doesn't even cost them anything. They can sell the service now and let customers do their research for them.
Doosan was doing this in 2021. They have GPS locators for their large equipment that allows it to dig to a certain depth consistently within a certain range. They could be programmed to prep a grade for like a warehouse floor or something and be let loose.
In reply to Beer Baron :
Long game, you wouldn't need operators, just supervisors to respond to alerts.
Regarding insurance...
You're right they won't like it, but I'm not sure what the costs will be initially. Liability insurance costs are based on payroll gross amounts, and this might actually reduce payroll. Of course, they will change the percentages, but the actuarial tables don't even exist yet for remote operations.
Off- road equipment operators don't need licenses.
SV reX said:Off- road equipment operators don't need licenses.
I was referring to business licenses, not operator licenses. I don't know the construction game, but I'm presuming that a construction company requires a state licensing to do construction in that state. That the state typically wants to be able to come and see what you're doing.
In reply to Beer Baron :
Gotcha.
Business licenses vary by municipality. It's just about collecting money (no inspections of any kind). Usually the General Contractor handles that (not the grading subcontractor).
Contractor licenses are handled by the states, and those are what trigger inspections. Grading contractors aren't issued contractor's licenses.
So again, no licenses.
In some areas, OSHA certifications for operators are required. That will be interesting...
(but pretty easy to get around)
RevRico said:In reply to Beer Baron :
Long game, you wouldn't need operators, just supervisors to respond to alerts.
Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know what will happen.
We are nowhere near general artificial intelligence. The current state and trajectory of automated systems is to be really good at handling pre-defined tasks, but not dealing with novel challenges. The fewer variables, the better.
Now think about how often in construction or demolition, you are presented with something novel.
Robotics labs have been super proud to train robots to be able to turn door knobs and open doors. Think of how relatively little variation there is in that compared to what occurs on a construction/demolition site.
Automated systems can be so good at doing things that humans are terrible at that it's easy to overlook that they are usually rubbish at things that humans find trivial (e.g. opening a door).
SV reX said:In some areas, OSHA certifications for operators are required. That will be interesting...
(but pretty easy to get around)
...until the very first time an out-of-state or (even worse) automated piece of equipment damages someone's property or causes an injury.
Then watch the government crack down on that.
This is exactly the sort of thing that bureaucracies that manage risk and liability don't like. Even if you can objectively show something is safer.
In reply to Beer Baron :
I agree with your assessment of the limits of automated systems. I think you are overestimating the risks and variables of construction.
An urban setting with decades of underground infrastructure, traffic patterns, pedestrians, gas lines, and buildings? No way.
But that's not most of excavation.
I am watching 1400 truckloads per day being moved on a site. Over 125 machines working. Every single machine is digging over and over again to the exact same depth. 9,000,000 cubic yards. They've been doing it for 11 months. That's about as repetitive as you can get.
Your point is valid. But that just means jobs will need to be defined as those that are appropriate for automated excavation, and those that are not.
The industry has labor shortages exceeding 40% (and rising). There is plenty of room for automated sites without costing anyone a job.
Beer Baron said:SV reX said:In some areas, OSHA certifications for operators are required. That will be interesting...
(but pretty easy to get around)
...until the very first time an out-of-state or (even worse) automated piece of equipment damages someone's property or causes an injury.
Then watch the government crack down on that.
This is exactly the sort of thing that bureaucracies that manage risk and liability don't like. Even if you can objectively show something is safer.
I disagree.
OSHA's #1 directive is to remove people from being exposed to injury. It will be super easy to package this to meet those requirements.
A few proximity sensors to prevent equipment from operating close to people, an operator's license for remote operators, and a rubber stamp from a licensing authority that approves a job for remote operations will be all it will take.
Those same bureaucrats that can stop a project can bend the rules to allow it when it is in their best interest.
The EPA regulations and protections that limit new construction processes have been lifted at the southern border so that border wall construction can continue. I am seeing the exact same thing on a smaller state scale on the project I am working on.
If the projects are in "the public interest" they can proceed without bureaucratic hinderance.
SV reX said:I don't think it is targeted at a project where productivity can literally be measured by the inches of the swing of the arm.
Ok, newbie question. I've been mulling this over, and I think I understand it. Are you saying the job is so big, and so much stuff is getting dug or moved that moving the arm of the excavator an inch is a huge win?
In reply to Brett_Murphy (Agent of Chaos) :
Kinda. Here's an example...
We have a large area (400 acres) that is being dug to a new elevation. About 8' below the current elevation. The excavators have to sit on the higher elevation and dig below them. But the trucks can be sitting on either the bottom or the top to be loaded. The excavators can reach them in either place. There is a large advantage for the trucks to be sitting on the lower level, because every swing of the arm of the excavator travels a shorter distance. This seems insignificant, but it adds up.
Depending on the size of the excavator bucket and the truck, it takes 6-12 excavator loads to fill a truck. Let's say 8 as an average. If each swing takes 15 seconds longer, it would cost 2 minutes more per truckload if the trucks were sitting on the upper level.
1400 truckloads per day. That's 2800 extra minutes. Over 46 hours (at a cost of about $100 per hour).
If we load the trucks on the top level where the excavator has to swing just a little further, it could cost us $4600 per day.
Note, that we DO load on the top level sometimes. After a rain, the lower level is too wet to navigate. On those days, we load to the top.
Does that make sense?
In reply to SV reX :
I worked planting trees one summer. Cutting one second off the time it took to plant one tree had a signficant effect on my overall output, so I spent some time analyzing my motions and movement and worked to optimize them. Same concept, small changes repeated many times makes a difference.
As for your opinion of DBEs, I'm with you. Terrible idea. This remote work capability might be what finally takes them down.
You'll need to log in to post.
