• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

New Name requred for the CSE Branch

Occam said:
I think the question posed a little earlier was asking if there was a new name chosen for the CSE Branch, as the title of the thread suggests.

What's this about "Weapons Engineering Technician"?


Occam - The entry occupation will be "Weapons Engineering Technician". It would be, as previously stated, incorrect to call the Combat Systems Department a branch as most of the CF refers to a branch. It is my personal opinion that the Combat Systems Department will be renamed the Weapons Engineering Department. This is not written in stone at this point and in fact even the entry occupation name "Weapons Engineering Technician" has yet to be approved. This is all part of a process that will be implemented over the next 1 - 2 years taking into consideration the interests of the majority of the stakeholders involved. As in any new interprise it is impossible to please everyone involved.

~ Cheers
 
Chief Gunner said:
It is my personal opinion that the Combat Systems Department will be renamed the Weapons Engineering Department. This is not written in stone at this point and in fact even the entry occupation name "Weapons Engineering Technician" has yet to be approved. This is all part of a process that will be implemented over the next 1 - 2 years taking into consideration the interests of the majority of the stakeholders involved. As in any new interprise it is impossible to please everyone involved.

I still think the trade/department name is a huge misnomer.

At present, it would break down like this:

NWTs and NET(T) (fire control specialty - "STIR Techs") are involved with weapons.

NET(T) (EW specialty and Radar specialty), NET(C) and NET(A) have nothing to do with weapons.

That still means that most of your department are hardcore electronics technicians in the traditional sense of the phrase.  I also see this throwing a wrench into the certification of techs coming out of CFNES.  At present, Journeyman NETs are eligible for certification by TechNova as Electronics Technicians (C.Tech).  I don't believe Journeyman NWTs are eligible for certification in any professional organization.  If the training for "Weapons Engineering Technicians" is going to be something less (or simply different) than what NETs are being given now, what effect will that have on the certification process?

Lots of stuff to consider.
 
Occam said:
At present, Journeyman NETs are eligible for certification by TechNova as Electronics Technicians (C.Tech).  I don't believe Journeyman NWTs are eligible for certification in any professional organization.  If the training for "Weapons Engineering Technicians" is going to be something less (or simply different) than what NETs are being given now, what effect will that have on the certification process?

I am a C.Tech = Certified ENGINEERING Technician through TechNova.  With that being said, Weapons ENGINEERING Technician is an applicable name.  With respect to the qualification criteria, the program material is reviewed regardless of the name.  It can be floor scrubber and still get recognition from TechNova.

As for the NWT, they are able to be C.Tech's upon completion of QL5 and 2 years experience just like NET's.
 
2fly said:
I am a C.Tech = Certified ENGINEERING Technician through TechNova.  With that being said, Weapons ENGINEERING Technician is an applicable name.  With respect to the qualification criteria, the program material is reviewed regardless of the name.  It can be floor scrubber and still get recognition from TechNova.

It's not "engineering" I have a problem with, it's "weapons".

If the program changes to incorporate training in all occupations, then TechNova can and probably will revoke the accreditation given to CFNES for its NE Tech program.  If you increase the scope of subject matter taught on the course, but don't lengthen the course, you have to water down the material somewhat.  It took a long time for the NE Tech program to become accredited by TechNova (provincially) and CTAB (nationally); it would be a shame to lose that accreditation.

As for the NWT, they are able to be C.Tech's upon completion of QL5 and 2 years experience just like NET's.

I wasn't 100% sure, but you're correct according to the document here.  However, NE Techs become C.Techs in the Electronics discipline, while NW Techs become C.Techs in the Electro-Mechanical discipline.  Isn't that a distinction that should be reflected in the trades?
 
Occam said:
I still think the trade/department name is a huge misnomer.

At present, it would break down like this:

NWTs and NET(T) (fire control specialty - "STIR Techs") are involved with weapons.

NET(T) (EW specialty and Radar specialty), NET(C) and NET(A) have nothing to do with weapons.

That still means that most of your department are hardcore electronics technicians in the traditional sense of the phrase.  I also see this throwing a wrench into the certification of techs coming out of CFNES.  At present, Journeyman NETs are eligible for certification by TechNova as Electronics Technicians (C.Tech).  I don't believe Journeyman NWTs are eligible for certification in any professional organization.  If the training for "Weapons Engineering Technicians" is going to be something less (or simply different) than what NETs are being given now, what effect will that have on the certification process?

Lots of stuff to consider.

In point of fact the existing Combat Systems Occupations will no longer exist. There will be five specialty occupations after the WE Tech entry occupation. Three of the five new specialty occupations will have direct hands on maintenance responsibility for what are traditionally considered hard-kill weapons systems (torpedos, missiles or guns). 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.
 
Occam,

As a sailor, I handle weapons on a regular basis. 

I worked on a ship that had over 100 weapons on it.  From missiles, torpedos, guns, rockets, rifles, pistols, machine-guns. 

Like it or not, we were ALL trained with weapons in basic training, and do a semi-annual weapons qualification at the range. 

Are small arms our primary job?  Nope.  Is working the Sonar's a SonarOP's primary job?  (Not usually, LOL)


Anyhow, my next question to the Chief is, with this now even broader knowledge base that will be mandated by this shift in our trades requirements, how likely is it that a shift to Spec 2 might happen?

I'm thinking it could be linked in a similar fashion to the Stokers and their Cert levels.  The new QL6B will require the PO2's to stand a board prior to passing, right?  Why not make that the level of knowledge/skill required for the Spec 2 level?

Between the trade specific knowledge, the WED wide knowledge from the 6Bs, the HAZMAT cleanup, the Duty Tech board, etc etc, somewhere in there, there has to be enough for us to get up over that "hump".  Or is there an aspect to the Spec 2 level that I'm not familiar with.  It'd also be a heck of an incentive for the guys who are on the course. 

Thanks Chief,

NavyShooter



 
NavyShooter said:
Occam,
As a sailor, I handle weapons on a regular basis. 
I worked on a ship that had over 100 weapons on it.  From missiles, torpedos, guns, rockets, rifles, pistols, machine-guns. 
Like it or not, we were ALL trained with weapons in basic training, and do a semi-annual weapons qualification at the range. 
Are small arms our primary job?  Nope.  Is working the Sonar's a SonarOP's primary job?  (Not usually, LOL)
Anyhow, my next question to the Chief is, with this now even broader knowledge base that will be mandated by this shift in our trades requirements, how likely is it that a shift to Spec 2 might happen?
I'm thinking it could be linked in a similar fashion to the Stokers and their Cert levels.  The new QL6B will require the PO2's to stand a board prior to passing, right?  Why not make that the level of knowledge/skill required for the Spec 2 level?
Between the trade specific knowledge, the WED wide knowledge from the 6Bs, the HAZMAT cleanup, the Duty Tech board, etc etc, somewhere in there, there has to be enough for us to get up over that "hump".  Or is there an aspect to the Spec 2 level that I'm not familiar with.  It'd also be a heck of an incentive for the guys who are on the course. 

Thanks Chief,

NavyShooter

    The CSE Occupation's pay is due for review early in 2009. The WE tech implentation process includes a pay review. Having said that people must have reasonable expectations. There are only three CF occupations receiving Specialst 2 pay. Specialist pay is not tied specifically to qualifications. It is based on an analysis protocol that looks at a variety of aspects of the occupation being reviewed. These include but are not limited to Training (skill set), Academics, Competencies (as a level on a scale i.e. not applicable, competent, expert etc), Personal Risk and Consequence of Error. All of the CSE occupation documentation submitted for the pay review was updated to include the occupations present day situation in these and the other required review aspects. This includes all the items you mentioned and many others.

    It is important to note at this point that the pay people in Ottawa are working towards a review of the manner in which all members of the CF are compensated for the work they do. This may result in a total restructuring of the way we are payed, satus quo, or minor modifications that are just too far downstream to specualte about at this moment

~ Cheers

 
Back
Top