Ask The CSE Chief

[Chief Gunner]

Thanks again, 2fly. I have to say it's pretty exiting to be going through this process right in the midst of some fairly major changes. Looking forward to school as I've had many years of technical work under my belt, but no papers to show for it. Hopefully all those years of assembly, testing, programming and troubleshooting will be helpful down the road.

To the community here: Give yourselves a huge pat on the back (or buy yourselves a few beers) or however you reward yourselves. These forums are a goldmine of information for those that choose to look for it. I'm very impressed. Thank you all!

Gypsylore - You have indeed picked an exciting time to join the NAVY. I think you will be well pleased with your choice. 2Fly has given you the skinny on what you can expect as far as training is concerned. The only thing I will add is that the new occupation structure includes a redistribution of equipment and thus the training load. This will result in a more equitable work and training load across the new occupations. (Part of the reason for restructuring the Branch).

I wish you good fortune and smooth sailing.

 

[2fly]

My $0.02 worth on the change of name for the trade(s):

If anything, the name of the trade is even more misleading now.  While a junior WET may have occasion to work on any electronic or weapon system, the vast majority of the trade at or above Journeyman level who have specialized will likely have nothing to do with "weapons".  A QL5 "comm tech" won't be touching CIWS, VLSS, or the gun; so why does he have "weapons" in his trade name?

Changing the name of the trade/branch should have been such a low priority it shouldn't even have been on the radar (no pun intended).

Also, my question on the other thread regarding the change of name for the Branch has not been answered.  Care to shed some light on that, Chief?

Honestly, I agree with you 100% but... As the Chief said, it is beyond my control, etc and as such...  Suck it up in silence.

 

[Harley Sailor]

Occam - clearly you have strong opinions about these things. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but at the end of the day the decision is not yours. You can continue to be bitter about things over which you have no control or you can accept that not everything in life is going to please you and move on with your life.

Well Said Chief.. It took me 25 years to learn that.. and the last five regretting I didn't learn it sooner.

 

[Occam]

Occam - clearly you have strong opinions about these things. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but at the end of the day the decision is not yours. You can continue to be bitter about things over which you have no control or you can accept that not everything in life is going to please you and move on with your life.

  The purpose of this thread is to provide a venue for member's of this forum to ask questions, voice complaints and address issues related to the Combat Systems Engineering Branch of the Canadian Navy.

I'm not quite sure what to make of that.  I don't know where you translated the voicing of my opinion into being bitter about anything, but you can rest assured that you're completely wrong.  For the record, I am no longer a member of the NE Tech community, or the Navy for that matter, but I do have an informed interest in the subject despite no longer being a stakeholder.

If I (and others) truly have no control over the decision, what was the point in soliciting input on the topic in the first place?  It would appear that the CSE trades are going to be told that not everything in life is going to please them, and they should move on with their lives.  MORPS, anyone?  ;D

 

[Jenerator]

Again, I agree with Occam.

And I am a Sonar Tech, on active duty.

Honestly, I find it VERY hard to believe that putting a piece of paper in front of a recruit that says "as a NET(?) you will be part of the Weapons Engineering Dept" as opposed to "CSE Dept" is going to clear any confusion in their mind, or draw any more people to the Tech trades.

I think you guys had it right when you were going to bring them in as CS Techs. I think that is a very good way to expose them to the trade and ship life.

But renaming the whole Department to something that only applies to one trade out of the six, is not a good idea. In my opinion. 

 

[Chief Gunner]

Occam - I will attempt to address both yours and Jenerator's comments in this post. So in no particular order . . .

1. This is not MORPs. I am not aware of any person involved in this project that believes that MORPS is a viable present day construct.

2. No offence but, it is highly unlikely that your opinions are based on a comprehensive knowledge of the reasons for the present restructuring of the existing CS Tech Occupations (which does not include an occupation called 'Sonar Tech' that name change has never been approved). However that means that your opinions are also not influenced by that comprehensive knowledge and thus are likely to include gems we may not have considered. Continously offering that opinion as the only viable solution or only offering criticism without solutions is counter productive.

3. Being involved in any decision making process that includes more than one person or organizations whether as an active participant or consultant does not mean that you are necessarily in control of that process.

4. I do not believe that I at any point stated that the Canadian Navy would be making policy decisions based solely on the input of anonymous members of an online public forum. However, your opinions are valued and considered in the decision making process of this CS Tech OAG. I personally ensure that all opinions, comments and questions posted within this thread are made known to the Occupation Advisory Group.

5. Three of the five new occupations will have direct hands on maintenance responsibility for what are traditionally considered hard-kill weapons systems. One of the two remaining will have direct hands on maintenance responsibility for what are traditionally considered soft-kill weapons systems i.e. electronic warfare systems. The fifth occupation will be responsible for maintenance of communications systems that support all aspects of naval operations. Clearly the majority of the new occupations are in fact weapons technicians. This is not simply a case of renaming the existing occupations. The new occupations will have new equipment responsibilities. Thus the requirement for a name change that accurately reflects what the actual job is.

6. There is absolutely no solution that will please everyone. The ideal solution is one that offends the fewest while meeting the requirements of the service. The Occupation Advisory Group, DMARPERs, DMTE and DGPR are working hard to find to an optimal solution. Various oversight organizations within the Navy, the CF and DND ensure that all regulations are adhered to throughout the restructuring process, and that the final solution meets departmental requirements.

* The present CS occupations (at all ranks, coasts, class of ship etc) have spent literally thousands of hours on rectifying a very real and complicated problem.

* Continuously suggesting that these changes are not required, are arbitrary or dictatorial in nature is not only incorrect and presumptuous, I personally find it to be unnecessarily confrontational, counter productive and insulting. Not only personally insulting but also insulting to the hundreds of Canadian Forces members and DND employees that are presently or have, in the past, been involved in this project.

 

[Occam]

Occam - I will attempt to address both yours and Jenerator's comments in this post. So in no particular order . . .

1. This is not MORPs. I am not aware of any person involved in this project that believes that MORPS is a viable present day construct.

You missed the smiley, Chief.  Changing the trade name now is similar to MORPS in that it was widely disliked, viewed as unnecessary by many, and was a long painful process.

2. No offence but, it is highly unlikely that your opinions are based on a comprehensive knowledge of the reasons for the present restructuring of the existing CS Tech Occupations (which does not include an occupation called 'Sonar Tech' that name change has never been approved). However that means that your opinions are also not influenced by that comprehensive knowledge and thus are likely to include gems we may not have considered. Continously offering that opinion as the only viable solution or only offering criticism without solutions is counter productive.

No offence taken; however, it would be appreciated if you would kindly stick to addressing the points raised and refrain from raising straw man arguments like "you don't have the comprehensive knowledge of the reasons for restructuring", attributing bitterness to my comments, and accusations of being confrontational and insulting.  Issues were raised with the change in the trade name; you didn't ask for solutions and I would submit that's the responsibility of the working group.  The issues raised were given in good faith and without malicious intent.  My experience is sufficient to be able to make educated (but not comprehensive) comment on matters relating to the trade(s).  Very few get that comprehensive experience, as you know already.

3. Being involved in any decision making process that includes more than one person or organizations whether as an active participant or consultant does not mean that you are necessarily in control of that process.

True, but I'm not sure what relevance your statement has on the discussion at hand.

4. I do not believe that I at any point stated that the Canadian Navy would be making policy decisions based solely on the input of anonymous members of an online public forum. However, your opinions are valued and considered in the decision making process of this CS Tech OAG. I personally ensure that all opinions, comments and questions posted within this thread are made known to the Occupation Advisory Group.

I don't believe anyone suggested that the Navy would be making policy decisions based solely on the input of anonymous members of an online public forum.

5. Three of the five new occupations will have direct hands on maintenance responsibility for what are traditionally considered hard-kill weapons systems. One of the two remaining will have direct hands on maintenance responsibility for what are traditionally considered soft-kill weapons systems i.e. electronic warfare systems. The fifth occupation will be responsible for maintenance of communications systems that support all aspects of naval operations. Clearly the majority of the new occupations are in fact weapons technicians. This is not simply a case of renaming the existing occupations. The new occupations will have new equipment responsibilities. Thus the requirement for a name change that accurately reflects what the actual job is.

Now we're getting somewhere.  If the reallocation of equipment responsibilities is the driving force behind the name change, then my opinion remains that it is unnecessary, although more information relating to how the equipment would be reallocated might persuade me to change my opinion.  For example, if we're turning a NET(T) who was formerly responsibile for CANEWS, RAMSES, the SRD, etc into a "Weapons Engineering Specialist Sensors" solely because he'll be given the added responsibility of the chaff launchers (your soft-kill weapon, along with RAMSES), then the "weapons" spin on his employment is tenuous at best.  He's still primarily a sensors tech.  Similarly, a NET(A) who was formerly responsible for the active and passive sonars, all the NAV equipment and horizon bars who will now be renamed to something else because of the addition of the torpedoes and launchers to the mix is still less a weapons tech and more a nav and sonar tech.  This isn't NWT bashing, because all these weapons systems do need to be maintained, but selling a recruit on a job as a weapons tech that has little to do with weapons is deceptive at the very least.

6. There is absolutely no solution that will please everyone. The ideal solution is one that offends the fewest while meeting the requirements of the service. The Occupation Advisory Group, DMARPERs, DMTE and DGPR are working hard to find to an optimal solution. Various oversight organizations within the Navy, the CF and DND ensure that all regulations are adhered to throughout the restructuring process, and that the final solution meets departmental requirements.

* The present CS occupations (at all ranks, coasts, class of ship etc) have spent literally thousands of hours on rectifying a very real and complicated problem.

* Continuously suggesting that these changes are not required, are arbitrary or dictatorial in nature is not only incorrect and presumptuous, I personally find it to be unnecessarily confrontational, counter productive and insulting. Not only personally insulting but also insulting to the hundreds of Canadian Forces members and DND employees that are presently or have, in the past, been involved in this project.

I know it's not a simple process, and that it takes huge amounts of manpower to address changes like this.  My experience has been that the Navy tends to overcomplicate things and use a sledgehammer when a tweaker will do.  Is the answer a reallocation of equipment amongst the trades, or is it simply that one trade is understaffed on the ships?  In reallocating more equipment to a particular trade, will a commensurate amount of additional training be given, or will the training become more "watered down" in order to fit more in the same period of time?  If it's watered down, what effect would that have on the certification process by TechNova?  Is the Navy even concerned about certification anymore?

Lots of questions, Chief.  Someone is going to have to take the hard sell to the members of the CSE trades to make this fly, or it'll become as unwelcome as MORPS was.

 

[Gypsylore]

As I'm not really part of this group yet, I have to admit that I'm not terribly concerned about what name the branch ends up being. I can imagine that after doing a particular job for many years, it has to be a bit disconcerning to hear that ones job and duties are about to be changed substantially. It's likely me being naive, but if we are being told that there are many good and solid reasons for this restructuring, shouldn't we do our best to support it and take this opportunity to assist in the process?

5. Three of the five new occupations will have direct hands on maintenance responsibility for what are traditionally considered hard-kill weapons systems. One of the two remaining will have direct hands on maintenance responsibility for what are traditionally considered soft-kill weapons systems i.e. electronic warfare systems. The fifth occupation will be responsible for maintenance of communications systems that support all aspects of naval operations. Clearly the majority of the new occupations are in fact weapons technicians. This is not simply a case of renaming the existing occupations. The new occupations will have new equipment responsibilities. Thus the requirement for a name change that accurately reflects what the actual job is.

From the above point, I get the impression that the new 'technician' trades may have an increase in mechanical duties as only one of the five mentioned above seems to be focused solely on electrical equipment (please remember, I'm 'outside' and am making assumptions). I can only assume that any individual that is responsible for maintaining any kind of moving equipment (especially weapon systems) would need a mechanical base as well as an electrical one. Is this new structure going to need a focus on Electromechanical technicians, like the NWTs are now? Or is the 'mechanical' aspect of the trades minor enough that my Electrical technician training suitable?

Just wondering if it would make more sense to enter into the Electromechanical course come the new year. That's assuming there is even time to get things switched at this stage.

 

[2fly]

Gypsylore, I would not worry about the mechanical aspect of it.  That can easily be covered during the equipment phases of training and besides, a good chunk of the mechanical foundation is covered during the electronic theory such as servo's etc.  You are correct, the changes to the trade should be supported as best possible.  The problem get caused from several aspects some of which including people not liking change, fear of the unknown and/or poorly explained.  Those of us that work in the trade(s) need to keep in mind that we do not have all of the information or know how the restructure is being done so we should have faith.  Then again, that is my opinion.

 

[Chief Gunner]

Gypsylore - do not worry, if you, or any other technician, requires mechanical training to be effective in the new structure you will receive it. Exactly when, where and how is yet to be ironed out. The first training design board  for the new structure is scheduled to sit in Feb 09. By the time you are finished your academic training and are ready for applications all should be in place.

Occam - The CS Tech Occupation Advisory Group held townhalls on both coasts this fall. During these events member support for the new occupation structure was solid. I was unable to attend the townhall on the east coast but, the west coast one was attended by almost 300 members. There was only one objection to the new structure voiced at that meeing and it centered on the new badge not the structure itself.
That does not mean that people are not concerned about how the changes will affect them personally. They have very real and valid concerns. Most involve how they will fit into the new structure and what the training cost will be for them personally.
The Navy is concerned about accreditation and appropriate recognition of all forms of leadership, performance, education and skill. It is important to remember that neither the CF or Navy is in the education business. If a education/training requirement equates to a civilian qualification or certification then DNDs policy is to support the aquisition of accreditation. However training for the sole purpose of accreditation is not DND policy.
I believe that your definition of what constitutes a weapon is narrow, self serving and not in accordance with definitions in general use.
I believe the remainder of your concerns have been addressed by myself and others. I understand that you have strong feelings about this subject but it is obvious that nothing that I say can convince you that what is being done is being done with the best of intentions, for valid reasons, with all reasonable precautions in place. Just because one has had an unpleasant experience due to change in the past is no reason not to ever change anything ever again.
I will not continue to address the same points endlessly with you. If you have something new that you wish to discuss I will happily participate in that discussion.

The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery.  ~ Harold Wilson

 

[Harley Sailor]

This has been some really good reading as of late.

Occam - you are fighting a losing battle.  I was at the east coast town hall and like the chief said, there was little objection.  From the hall talk and over a few beer later & before, a lot have objections but know that we have little say.  A done deal it is, so we do things the Navy Way and except what we can not change, even if it is change it self.

Occam  - my next point it "why should we care about the effect it would have on the certification process by TechNova" we are training sailors after all.  If you want training for another job you should have to get your own certification.  To be a Real Tech you need 100s of hour working in your field.  Most of our tech time is spent at part ship hands or cleaning stations.  If you counted your time working in you rfield and not just your time in would you really qualify for certification by TechNova?

 

[NavyShooter]

Aye,

Some well written responses in here of late.

In the PER system, there's a little box about "Leading Change"  This is a part of that.

Our trades (A, C, T) are so critically short of people that there will be change.  Absolutely.  The question is, what direction will it take.

I am not privy to the latest numbers on attrition/recruiting, but from the rumbles I've heard, they are not pretty.  (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) 

If changing the name of our trades and adding "Weapons" to it makes us seem more interesting to potential recruits, then game on.  We NEED people NOW. 

The long lead time to train competent technicians means that any changes we make will have a long implementation period before they are fully run through the system.

It will get worse (manning wise) before it gets better, but at least something is happening.  If we don't do anything, and recruiting numbers carry on at the low attraction rate that we have seen recently, then before very long, there may not be many people left at all.  (Who's going to close the door and turn out the lights?)

So.  I support this, in the hopes that the coming changes will improve our recruiting numbers, and maybe, just maybe, we can turn the corner and head up.  If this change doesn't work, then the next step in change for the departments might be towards the MSE/IMCS model....a couple of senior techs onboard responding to equipment problems alone, not doing "other" stuff. 

Oh, and WRT the "Mechanical" training, well, hey, if the NWT's can figure it out, anyone can.  (dig dig dig)

NS

 

[grendel]

Lots of good stuff said, but really agree with Harley and Shooter.  Bring in the numbers, bring in the WE Tech's, for what I've understood so far from the townhalls, etc.  most of the apprentices are still going to have a say (minimal as it might be) in what trade they enter upon completing their packages.  Don't let the recruiting center decide that the person directly out of high school should be a gunner even though they are horrible with everything mechanical, but know their way around electronics.  Let the department and the individual decide what they excel at and what they enjoy.  The WE Tech's will also be able to get their hands dirty in all aspects of the department before entering a specialty, something that I sort of wish that I would have had a chance to do, since being a stir tech is something that I could very well have chosen instead of my present trade. 

My biggest worry for the WE Tech's is going to be (knowing that the training plan is not complete yet), is how many signatures are they going to be required to get for their OJT during this stage.  I look at the gunners 4's package as of now and dread the thought of requiring more signatures than that; the training for a WE Tech along with the discussion of them having to do messmen, phones and headsets, on top of MCC/DCC package, and any other duties that are handed to them, I wonder if it's going to be a little much for them to be working on, and that we won't be burning them out before they are qualified.  Hopefully the training plans will take that into account.

Also, even though I've seen the plans and numbers before, I wonder how well the departments will work when not at full capacity.  Currently we can't fill the billets for the four trades (A,T,C & NWT) yet now we are looking at five.  Are we going to be able to fill the billet for at least 5 MS, one from each trade, or is there going to be a lot more responsibility placed on the LS in the absence of a full department?

 

[grendel]

Changing the topic from the WE Tech plans and all, even though it is so much fun to re-hash the same thing over and over again, currently have a question about the QSP and the QL4's package.
Recently I have been given a "QL4's Supplementary Package" from my training PO and contained within it, is a PO reference to each of the sections within my 4's package.  It also states that before PO401, 403, etc. are to be signed off within my 4's, I must complete the supplementary project which is primarily a written description of each of the systems.  I have completed one of them so far on the RSB's, how they interface with each of the weapon systems, signals that are passed and stopped in both veto and unveto modes, as well as explaining the interaction with the panels and CCS.  This was numerous hours worth of work, in which I could have probably been using to do some of my 4's drawings or other items that are directly related to my package. 
Primarily my question deals with the current training plans that are set out, and whether my training PO can hold me back from my 5's and neglect to sign off my 4's package if all of these supplementary items are not completed.  In the end, before my package gets its final signature, I know I have to demonstrate a knowledge of all of the systems, and this is redundant and eats up valuable time that I could be working on my 4's.  Do you have any thoughts on this supplementary package Chief, is this becoming something that's seen on most ships now?

Thanks

 

[NavyShooter]

Grendel,

When I was supervising and signing off on QL4 packages on ship, I had a simple answer to whether or not someone was done with a task.

"Does he know this well enough to go on his QL5 course."

My underlying thought process is, and has been that the person who's package I'm signing off is going up to the school, with my name on the package.  I'm not going to send someone to the school for his next level of training if he/she is not ready for the course. 

I expected a certain standard from my QL4 trainees on ship, and they all attained it.  The PO404 that required a "Capabilities and limitations" write-up on each major piece of equipment?  I asked for a minimum 2 page writeup in proper military memorandum format.

The equipment diagrams?  Each piece of gear was done twice.  Once for major signal flow, the other for power distribution back to the switchboards.

At the end of the package, before I signed off on it, I have a list of about 5 pages of "required knowledge" that I review with the trainee.  Takes about 2 hours, PLUS a walkthrough of all the NET(A) equipment on the ship.  The required knowledge covered a review of the material "learned" in the QL4 package, everything from ERT locations, a review of equipment caps/lims, etc. 

I think one of the biggest problems with QL4 package completion is the fact that our departments are so undermanned that the QL4 trainees are not able to concentrate on their packages, instead, they're busy doing everything else.

YMMV, but I think the important thing is to get our guys working on our gear more, and doing less out of department work.

NS

 

[Sattech66]

My biggest worry for the WE Tech's is going to be (knowing that the training plan is not complete yet), is how many signatures are they going to be required to get for their OJT during this stage.  I look at the gunners 4's package as of now and dread the thought of requiring more signatures than that; the training for a WE Tech along with the discussion of them having to do messmen, phones and headsets, on top of MCC/DCC package, and any other duties that are handed to them, I wonder if it's going to be a little much for them to be working on, and that we won't be burning them out before they are qualified.  Hopefully the training plans will take that into account.

Also, even though I've seen the plans and numbers before, I wonder how well the departments will work when not at full capacity.  Currently we can't fill the billets for the four trades (A,T,C & NWT) yet now we are looking at five.  Are we going to be able to fill the billet for at least 5 MS, one from each trade, or is there going to be a lot more responsibility placed on the LS in the absence of a full department?

Same concerns that I have, perhaps it will be painful but eventually we will get there I think.
If I were to offer my two cents....we need to get the Tech's out the door and posted to a ship ASAP...they joined as a sailor so get them out for the experience. Then after a few years bring them back for more training.
Much like I did in 89, because I was an operator first (3 yrs) my initial training was only about a year long (approx 6 months pats included) then off to sea I went and had some real fun and real learning experience.
Now 20 yrs later I'm a 6B qual NET and saying where did the time go 

Hey it's still fun, you have to work at it to make it that way 

 

[Chief Gunner]

Grendel - I am unaware of any QL4 supplementary training package. I have sent a query to DMTE to get more information about that prior to responding.

As far as recruiting goes, numbers are actually up. No doubt the economy has something to do with this. But once we start recruiting to the WE structure the occupation will indeed have more flexibility in what discipline an individual ends up in. This is an unplanned bonus that allows us to circumvent the non existent regional quotas. I always find it amusing that we feel we own QL3s and that they should be in the Fleet as soon as they sign the dotted line. The fact is they don't belong to us until they are QL3 qualified. I am reminded of a bumper sticker I saw once that said " if you think education is expensive try stupid for a while".

That being said, we can and will train smarter and that is being addressed. In the near future Halifax Class training will occur on both coasts. Academic training times will be rationalized against civilian standards as the WE Tech QSPs are written. And a number of other training efficiences are being investigated as we speak. One is that subjects that are practical skills presently taught in academics should probably be moved to applications training.

Pay => always a big topic of discussion when it comes to spec pay. The existing CSE occupations are due for a pay review in early 2009. Will that result in a higher rate of Specialist pay? I don't know but to be perfectly honest I do not that is a reasonable expection. there are only 3 occupations in the CF that get the higher level and one of those, IMO, will probably lose theirs. The WE occupation will be the subject of a pay review as part of the implementation process. So two upcoming pay reviews.

Hands on tools time - MARPARC has stood-up a working group to look into this problem. It is early going but, some of results of trials they have conducted with reduced duty watches (reduced FP requirements), special sea dutymen (no CS Techs) and lifebouy sentry (why have one at all) look real real promising.

Participation - is the key to success. If you identify a problem or see an area for improvement and don't pass it on you are missing an opportunity, it is easy to criticize so include a possible solution with your observation. If your chain of command is not listening PM or e-mail it to me. If I think it has merit I will take it for action. If not I will let you know 'why not' or what you have to do make it supportable. Sound decisions are based on facts not opinions.

Lots going on. Lots of work to do. Lots of opportunities.

All well intentioned digs at Gunners are acceptable. After all if our job was easy NETs would want it.

 

[Marinero2008]

I have a question for NE Techs. I applied to join the Navy as NE Tech (C) and I was just wondering how long after the BMQ, NETP and the trade's training (Apprentice Course) they will let me set foot onboard ship?

Thanks

 

[nick2k]

Chief,

    I was wondering is the Military ever goin to bring back the IE20 or is the IE25 contract here to stay. Thank you .

 

[George Wallace]

IE25 is not Trade specific; it is Forces Wide.